I finished reading A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell a while ago. Not being an expert by any stretch I thought it was very good (informative, accessible, enjoyable etc..). But I have read in a number of different places that it isn't actually accurate. Most recently Anthony Kenny noted that it wasn't overburdened by accuracy (but it was a great introduction just to enthuse students) and Peter Adamson in his History of Philosophy podcast noted the same in a brief aside. The reviews section in wikipedia points to the same.
So the question is - is there sections of it (chapters) that are particular inaccurate so should be read with a pinch or salt. Or is it a more general mood to the work (e.g. is it Whiggish - for instance his own area pf interest logical analysis is at the end - does this represent his interpretation of the end of philopsophy). Is it possible give a high level summary of corrections to the work or is that too big a task?
Just to add clarity - i'm only interested in the accuracy of the philosophy chapters not the more historical chapters.