The story presents several verifiable facts, such as the firing of Boswell Anglin, the pending criminal charges, and the federal lawsuit filed by the student, Jamaar Johnson. These claims are specific and can be checked against public records or legal documents. However, the story lacks direct citations or references to these sources, which affects its accuracy score.

The article mentions Anglin's rejection of a plea deal, the details of which would need to be confirmed through court records or statements from involved parties. Similarly, the claims about the incident's details, such as Anglin's actions during the scuffle and the prosecutor's allegations, require verification through video footage or eyewitness accounts.

While the article includes statements from Anglin and mentions the support he received from colleagues, it does not provide direct quotes or detailed accounts from these individuals, which would strengthen its factual basis. The lack of specific evidence, such as the school security camera footage, further highlights areas needing verification.

The article attempts to present both sides of the story by including claims from Anglin and the district's perspective. It describes Anglin's assertion that he acted reasonably and the contrasting view from the prosecutor's office. However, the piece leans slightly towards Anglin's perspective by highlighting his claims of a 'sham' investigation and the support he received from colleagues.

The student's perspective is mentioned through the lawsuit, but the article does not provide a direct statement or detailed account from Jamaar Johnson or his representatives. This omission creates an imbalance in the narrative, as the reader is not fully exposed to the student's side of the incident.

Overall, while the article attempts to balance the perspectives, it could benefit from a more robust representation of the student's viewpoint and additional context from the school district and legal authorities.

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, providing a straightforward account of the events and claims involved. The narrative follows a logical progression, detailing the incident, subsequent legal actions, and the differing perspectives of Anglin and the district.

However, the piece could benefit from clearer explanations of legal terms and processes, such as the implications of the plea deal or the specific nature of the lawsuits. Providing definitions or additional context would aid readers unfamiliar with legal proceedings in understanding the story.

Overall, while the article is accessible and logically structured, enhancing clarity through additional explanations and context would improve comprehension for a broader audience.

The article lacks direct attribution to primary sources, such as court documents, statements from involved parties, or official records, which affects the credibility of the information presented. The absence of specific sources or quotes from key figures like Anglin, Johnson, or district officials limits the reliability of the claims made.

The story does mention the involvement of the Passaic County Prosecutor’s Office and refers to a school security camera video, suggesting some level of official involvement. However, without direct quotes or references, the article relies heavily on secondary reporting, which may not capture the full context or accuracy of the situation.

Improving source quality would involve providing direct citations or quotes from legal documents, eyewitnesses, or involved parties to substantiate the claims and offer a clearer picture of the incident.

The article provides limited context about the basis of its claims, such as the details of the investigation process or the evidence used to support the termination decision. While it mentions a school security camera video, it does not disclose whether the footage was reviewed by the reporter or how it was obtained.

The piece lacks a clear explanation of the methodology behind the reporting, such as how information was gathered or verified. It also does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as relationships between the reporter and the involved parties, which could affect the article's impartiality.

Greater transparency would involve explaining the sources of information, detailing the evidence available, and disclosing any factors that might influence the reporting, thereby enhancing the reader's understanding of the article's foundation.