The news story accurately reports the involvement of the New Hampshire Attorney General's office in investigating an officer-involved shooting in Dover. The claims about the shooting occurring during a traffic stop and the woman being in stable condition align with the information provided by credible sources. However, the story lacks details on the circumstances leading to the shooting, which are crucial for a complete understanding of the event. The absence of specific names and the lack of mention of any video evidence or eyewitness accounts mean that while the basic facts are correct, some areas need further verification to ensure comprehensive accuracy.

The article presents a straightforward account of the incident without overt bias. However, it primarily focuses on the official narrative provided by authorities. There is a lack of perspectives from the victim's side or independent witnesses, which could provide a more balanced view of the incident. Including viewpoints from community members or legal experts could enhance the story's balance by offering insights into potential implications or concerns raised by such incidents.

The article is clearly written, with a straightforward structure that makes it easy for readers to follow the main points. The language is neutral and factual, contributing to an objective tone. However, the lack of detail regarding the circumstances of the shooting and the absence of quotes from involved parties or witnesses limit the depth of understanding that readers can gain from the story.

The story relies on information from the New Hampshire Attorney General's office and state police, which are authoritative sources for this type of incident. However, the article does not cite any independent or third-party sources, such as legal analysts or community leaders, that could provide additional context or critique the official narrative. The reliance on official sources is typical in breaking news but limits the depth of the reporting.

The article lacks transparency in terms of disclosing the methodology behind the information gathering. It does not explain how the information was obtained or whether any attempts were made to verify details independently. Additionally, there is no mention of potential conflicts of interest or the limitations of the current information, which are crucial for readers to assess the impartiality of the reporting.