I look at artillery at any period through the viewpoint of a professional artilleryman, as well as an historian. If that is inappropriate, then so be it.
I do find, though, that when the Russian artillery is criticized for anything it is taken as a great error, bias, or mistake. The French, naturally, come in for the most scrutiny and most of that is very inaccurate. I suppose as the biggest bat on the block, that is natural. However, as I said I first look at artillery arms from education and training which leads to proficiency. And there the Russians are behind the best artillery arms in Europe, as upset as some may become.
In material I have written, however, I believed that I was most fair to the Russians as well as complimentary. I do believe that they had the most improved artillery arm of the period but they had a lot of catching up to do (I believe they still do two hundred years later). Whatever their faults or virtues, they were far from having the best artillery arm of the period, no matter how many guns they fielded. They had their moments, as at Eylau and sometimes in 1813, but they were behind the British, French, and Austrians, technically as well as tactically (and educationally), and it showed in their use of the arm.