As for the rest of your complaint: Luke is demonstrably a good historian. He is also very careful. (One thing I notice that amuses me: In Acts, sometimes Luke is traveling with Paul. When he is, the level of detail goes up. Not "Then Paul departed from X, and went to Y", but "Then we got on a ship, and sailed to A. On the next day we sailed to off of B. Then we passed on side C of island D..." Luke knows what he knows, and he's not filling in detail when he doesn't know it.)
I'm not going to defend Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon at all. I also don't know why you brought them up.
Just because an account is detailed doesn't mean everything it describes happened.
Jesus supposedly even claims prophets get no respect in their own town. Which is entirely consistent with how conmen are treated.
Which is why they are fantasy. In order to "actually happen" there must be observable change. And despite mighty efforts there is no physical evidence that defies simpler and more reproduceable explanations.
Book of Mormon was written during Smith's lifetime. I still don't believe he talked to angels or actually got divine revelation from golden plates.