The article provides a detailed account of the measles outbreak in the United States, with specific statistics on the number of cases and hospitalizations in various states. The figures, such as the total number of cases surpassing 800 and the specifics for states like Texas and New Mexico, align well with official health department reports. However, some claims, such as the assertion that half of the US states are reporting measles cases, require further verification against CDC data for complete accuracy. The story also mentions that only 3% of cases involve vaccinated individuals, a statistic that should be corroborated with CDC or WHO data to ensure precision. Overall, while the article is largely accurate, it would benefit from additional citations to strengthen its claims.

The article mainly focuses on the outbreak's statistics and the response from health officials, providing a factual and neutral overview. However, it could have included more perspectives, such as those from affected families or communities, to offer a more comprehensive view. The piece also lacks insights from vaccination opponents or those skeptical about the outbreak's severity, which might be relevant given the context of vaccine hesitancy. Including a wider range of viewpoints would enhance the article's balance and provide a fuller picture of the situation.

The article is well-structured and uses clear, straightforward language, making it accessible to a general audience. It logically progresses from the national overview to specific state details and concludes with expert opinions and potential implications. The tone is neutral and informative, effectively communicating the seriousness of the outbreak without sensationalism. Overall, the article is easy to follow and understand, with no significant elements that hinder comprehension.

The article references credible sources such as state health departments and the CDC, which are authoritative entities in public health. These sources lend reliability to the statistics and information presented. However, the article could improve by directly citing these sources or including direct quotes from officials to enhance transparency and credibility. The mention of experts like Dr. David Sugerman from the CDC adds authority, but more diverse expert opinions could further strengthen the source quality.

The article provides a clear presentation of facts and figures but lacks explicit citations or links to the data sources, which would improve transparency. While it mentions updates from state health departments and the CDC, direct references or links to these reports would allow readers to verify the information independently. Additionally, the article could benefit from disclosing any potential conflicts of interest or biases, particularly in relation to the experts quoted.