The story accurately describes the location of Indonesia's new capital, Nusantara, on Borneo Island and the purpose of relocating from Jakarta. The claim about the rodent infestation is supported by reports of videos spreading on social media, and the response by the Nusantara Capital Authority to deploy rat traps is consistent with official actions.

However, the story does not provide specific sources or data to verify the number of visitors or the extent of the litter problem. The project's budget and timeline are mentioned, but these figures require confirmation from official sources. The article's accuracy would benefit from more explicit citations or references to official statements and data.

Overall, the story presents a generally accurate depiction of the situation but lacks detailed source attribution for some claims, which affects its verifiability.

The article primarily focuses on the challenges facing Nusantara, such as the rodent infestation and litter, which could undermine its image as a 'smart and sustainable' city. This focus may skew the reader's perception by emphasizing negative aspects without equally highlighting ongoing efforts to address these issues or positive developments.

While the article mentions the deployment of rat traps and sanitation measures, it does not explore the perspectives of local residents, tourists, or environmental experts who might provide a broader view of the situation. Including a wider range of viewpoints would enhance the article's balance.

The article could improve by presenting more diverse perspectives, including those of government officials, environmentalists, and local communities, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting information in a logical sequence that makes it easy for readers to follow. It uses straightforward language and provides a coherent narrative about the challenges facing Nusantara.

The article effectively highlights the contrast between the city's futuristic ambitions and the current issues it faces, such as the rodent infestation and litter. This clarity helps readers understand the potential impact of these challenges on the city's image and development.

Overall, the article's clarity is a strong point, as it communicates complex issues in an accessible manner without overwhelming the reader with jargon or unnecessary details.

The article lacks explicit attribution to specific sources, which affects its credibility. While it mentions actions by the Nusantara Capital Authority, it does not directly quote any official statements or provide links to official reports or data.

The absence of named sources or references to official documents makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the information presented. Including statements from government officials, environmental experts, or local stakeholders would enhance the article's source quality.

To improve source quality, the article should incorporate more authoritative sources and provide clear attribution to enhance the credibility and reliability of its claims.

The article lacks transparency in terms of its sources and the basis for its claims. It does not disclose the methodology used to gather information or the sources from which it derives its data.

Without explicit references to official reports, statements, or interviews, readers are left without a clear understanding of how the information was obtained or verified. This lack of transparency can lead to questions about the article's impartiality and the accuracy of its claims.

Improving transparency would involve providing clear citations, explaining the methodology used to gather information, and disclosing any potential conflicts of interest that might affect the article's objectivity.