The article is largely accurate, presenting detailed information about China's expansion of detention facilities. It supports its claims with specific examples, such as the number of centers built and the descriptions of these facilities. The use of government documents and tender notices adds verifiability to the claims. However, some statements, like the exact number of detentions, rely on estimates and may require further verification. The article could improve accuracy by clarifying these potential discrepancies and providing more direct sources or data to support certain claims.

The article predominantly presents a critical view of China's detention regime, focusing on potential abuses and criticisms from legal experts and affected individuals. While this perspective is important, the article could benefit from a more balanced approach by including statements or statistics from Chinese authorities or supporters of the system. This would offer a more nuanced view of the anti-corruption efforts and the reasoning behind the expansion of detention centers. The absence of these perspectives could suggest a bias, which the article should address to provide a fair representation of the issue.

The article is well-structured and clearly written, with a logical flow that effectively guides the reader through complex information. The use of subheadings and detailed descriptions helps in breaking down complicated topics into understandable segments. The tone remains professional, with emotive language kept to a minimum, ensuring that the narrative stays focused on factual reporting. The clarity of the descriptions, particularly regarding the detention centers' features, is a significant strength. However, including more visual aids or infographics could further enhance understanding.

The article cites various sources, including legal experts, government documents, and tender notices, which generally lend credibility to its claims. However, many sources are unnamed due to fears of government retribution, which can affect their perceived reliability. The article could enhance source quality by providing more context about these unnamed sources and confirming claims with named, verifiable sources where possible. Additionally, while CNN's investigative efforts are commendable, more diversity in source types could strengthen the article's foundation.

While the article provides some context about the detention system's history and changes, it lacks full transparency regarding its sources and potential biases. Many sources remain anonymous, which, while understandable, limits the reader's ability to fully assess the veracity of the claims. The article does not fully disclose the potential influences on its reporting, such as the political context of its sources. Improved transparency about the methodologies used in the investigation and acknowledgment of any limitations or biases would enhance the article's trustworthiness.