I see two questions on your post; the first about historical bias and inaccuracucy and the second about good historical authors.

My instinct is that all historical authors are faced with critiques of inaccuracy and bias and that it's simply expected when trying to tell a story from the past.

You get the main point, but there's a difference between inaccuracy and bias. In this point in time there's the general consensus that there is no such thing as a ''objective'' history, or ''true'' depictions of the past. Back in the XIX century the french methodical school and other historians, such as Leopold van Ranke, thought that they could achieve the historical truth as it had indeed happened, through the methodical use of documents and believing in a unbiased position.

In the XX century things have changed, mainly through the annales school and the ''new history''. Historians do know, now, that they are always subjected to theirs beliefs and points of view., to their own subjective mind. That is also different from what you may be calling bias, that would be deliberately defending personal positions and ideology. The point is, every writing has the side of the person who is writing, that is why the academia is so important, to prevent historical bias or inaccuracies.

About inaccuracies, that is different from bias. There may be no ''true truth'' in history, but there certainly is falseness. As someone could have advocated in the past that Columbus was the first european to set foot on the Americas, we now know that is incorrect, through new findinds we know other europeans had been in the americas before. Of course, a bias or a historical inaccuracy could happen by not using ( deliberately or not) some historical information.

About good historical biographical authors I'm not aware of any good author, though it is a field that has been growing in the past years. You should definently be looking for renowed authors praised by the academia if you wish to read ''unbiased'' and thruthful biographies, since biographies could be written by non-historians subjected to innacuracies.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, english is not my first language, thought that theses explanations could be of good use for iniciate historical readings.

I can add on a bit and explain to OP a bit about helping yourself determine if a work is good scholarship.

Some quick and easy ways to go about it are checking the publisher of the book in question, checking what the author actually specializes in, and how the author cites their sources. I will elaborate:

Publishers - safer bets are consulting historical works that are published either by university presses or academic presses. These are safer because the burden of scholarship is far, far higher in order to be published. These are publishers that, while wanting to get a public audience, are very concerned with making sure that what is being published is rigorous and well-written. Generally speaking anyways. Crap does sometimes slip through.

Author - this is very important in my opinion. I would not trust an author as much that is writing outside of their normal area of research. The best histories are written via heavy incorporation of primary source materials as much as possible. This often means foreign languages, which in turn means specialization of study. Aside from this, no one can be an expert on everything, so seeking works written by the people who have devoted their research to particular areas of study better ensures accuracy.

Citations - this is something that book reviews written by the popular press don’t evaluate enough. It is not enough for an author to do research and then write. They must cite their sources in a manner that makes it easy to see where they are getting their information. In my fields of study (concerning the broad category of “Asia Studies”) a great example that has been picked apart justly is Jung Chang’s biography of Mao Zedong. The citations are truly awful. She does not provide citations after each “factual claim” that she makes. Instead she gives a citation with a vague description of the page. This is a problem because you do not know if the source in question is behind all the claims on a page, or which individual ones it backs. This is very very irresponsible and misleading scholarship. Aside from this, what you are citing also matters. Many of the citations she makes in the book are, for lack of a better term, irrelevant to the topic at hand. Just because the notes section of the book is a hundred pages long or whatever it is doesn’t matter if the sources are half terrible. Actually, the book fails all three tests I have mentioned here, so it’s a very good bad example.

Some authors also make their biases very apparent. They, like Chang above, may sound at times like their sole purpose is to tear into a historical subject. They put way too much editorializing into the work. That is irresponsible because it influences the reader in a dishonest way, in my opinion.

“Good biographers” is interesting in concept because, as I said above, a good biography necessarily is limited to people who are experts on the subject at hand. I can recommend good biographies though. Ho Chi Minh, A Life by William J. Duiker (an expert on Viet Nam and the Indochina Wars) is a very good biography. It’s extremely heavy on Vietnamese sources. Sihanouk: Prince of Light, Prince of Darkness by Milton Osborne (an expert on Cambodia) is kind of short, especially for a complex person like Sihanouk, but as an introduction to the person and to Cambodian anti-colonialism, it is pretty solid. Return to the Middle Kingdom: One Family, Three Revolutionaries, and the Birth of Modern China by Yuan-Tsung Chen is especially interesting because of how she writes the biography documenting the three generations of revolutionaries of her husband’s family (including her husband, but she also writes about her own role in the communist revolution as well as how she did the research). It’s a very compelling read. I can recommend many others if you wish.

Another thing I would recommend is to seek out memoirs written by both major historical actors and also regular people during a historical period or moment. These are often extremely valuable, giving you a more bottom-up view of history rather than top-down. Some particularly great ones I have read are When Heaven and Earth Changed Places: A Vietnamese Woman’s Journey From War to Peace by Phung Thi Le Ly Hayslip is a harrowing, important read. A Vietcong Memoir by Truong Nhu Tang is incredibly important to understanding how the National Liberation Front came to be and operated. Ao Dai: My War, My Country, My Vietnam by Xuan Phuong; Phuong was a member of the Viet Minh as a teen, she was originally from the north. Sorry about all the Viet Nam recommendations, these ones still stick out to me very clearly.

Anyways, I hope this helps.