The article is largely accurate, providing specific details about the mass shooting, including the date, location, and number of victims. For instance, it mentions that the shooting occurred on New Year's Day in Cetinje, Montenegro, and resulted in 13 deaths, including the perpetrator. The article also accurately reports historical data, such as a previous shooting in August 2022. However, it does not provide specific sources or documents to verify these details, which slightly detracts from its overall accuracy. The mention of Montenegro's ranking in terms of illegal weapons per capita is stated as fact, but again, lacks a direct reference to the data source.

The article predominantly presents a single narrative focused on the incident itself and the subsequent public outcry. While it mentions the government's promise to curb illegal weapons and the public's demand for official resignations, it lacks a broader range of perspectives. For instance, insights from security experts or community leaders could provide a more balanced view. There's also a notable absence of perspectives from the government or security officials on the measures they plan to implement. This lack of diverse viewpoints suggests a slight bias towards the perspective of the victims and the public, without adequately exploring potential counterarguments or responses from authorities.

The article is clear and well-structured, presenting the facts in a logical sequence. The language is straightforward, making the information accessible to a broad audience. It effectively outlines the key details of the incident, such as the timeline, locations, and the number of victims. The tone remains neutral and factual throughout, avoiding emotive language that could bias the reader's perception. However, the article could enhance clarity by providing more background information on the political context or historical precedents of gun violence in Montenegro. Despite this, the overall clarity is strong, with minimal confusion or ambiguity in the reporting.

The article does not cite any direct sources, leaving readers without a means to verify the claims independently. The reference to RTCG, a state television broadcaster, is made without further details on the report or its contents. This omission affects the credibility, as readers are unable to assess the reliability of the information. The article would benefit from including more specific sources, such as statistics from governmental reports or expert analyses, to substantiate its claims. Additionally, the lack of interviews or direct quotes from witnesses, officials, or experts further diminishes the article's source quality.

The article provides a straightforward account of the incident but lacks transparency in terms of source attribution and context. While it mentions the general issues of gun culture and political division in Montenegro, it does not delve deeply into the underlying causes or potential biases of the reporting. There is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest or affiliations that might influence the narrative. The article would benefit from a clearer explanation of the data sources and the methodologies behind the reported statistics, such as the claim about Montenegro's ranking in illegal weapon possession.