Wait a second.
Not only is there room for criticism: Why wait mostly until during and after the put down of the Jewish Revolt to start writing about Jesus?

Why would Luke wait mostly until during and after the put down of the Jewish Revolt to start writing about Paul when he was an acquaintance of Paul? One would write about a personal acquaintance before a secondary acquaintance. Why would Acts not begin with the personal acquaintance, Paul, and have the biographical information be more similar to the autobiographical information?

Would Luke have been someone entrusted with copies of the original letters of Paul, preserving the legacy of Paul after Paul died, referencing the letters from rich, Paul's estate? He/someone else/they certainly cared about him after "Paul" "died."

You often say, Matthew and John did not write the canonical gospels. Who would have preserved the legacy of Jesus after Jesus died; Why not a rich and educated Samaritan for the parable about the Good Samaritan; why not an educated Roman general because Jesus at least prayed for his daughter if not made her well; Why not the educated of a town in gratitude for relief from their troubles by Jesus's exorcism of a possessed man?