The story accurately reports on the new capability of setting WhatsApp as the default app for messaging and calling on iPhones, aligning with the details that Apple introduced the ability to choose default apps with iOS 18.2. The article correctly notes that WhatsApp now supports this feature with its latest update, version 25.8.74. However, the article could benefit from more precise details about the specific steps and technical requirements involved, such as the necessity for users to update their iOS to at least version 18.2 or later. Overall, the article's claims are supported by verifiable facts, but some points, like the global significance of the update, could use additional data for validation.

The article primarily focuses on the technical update and its implications for WhatsApp users, especially in regions where WhatsApp is more prevalent than iMessage. While it highlights the benefits for users in countries like India, it does not delve into potential downsides or alternative viewpoints, such as the impact on Apple's ecosystem or user privacy concerns. The article could be improved by including perspectives from users who might prefer Apple's native apps or those concerned about data security with third-party apps.

The article is generally clear and straightforward, using accessible language to explain the new feature and its significance. The structure is logical, with a clear progression from the introduction of the feature to its potential impact. However, some technical terms and processes, such as the steps to set WhatsApp as the default app, could be explained more thoroughly to ensure comprehension by all readers, particularly those less familiar with technology.

The article lacks direct attribution to primary sources or expert opinions, relying instead on generalized claims and information likely sourced from technology news outlets. Mentioning specific sources like Apple or WhatsApp representatives, or citing official statements or press releases, would enhance the credibility and reliability of the information presented. The lack of diverse sources or authoritative voices limits the depth of the article's analysis.

The article provides basic information about the new feature and its significance but does not offer transparency regarding the methodology used to gather this information or any potential conflicts of interest. The absence of detailed source attribution or explanation of the research process makes it difficult for readers to assess the basis of the claims. Greater transparency about how the information was obtained and any potential biases would improve the article's credibility.