The story presents several key facts accurately, such as Sophie Chandauka's accusations against Prince Harry and the context of his resignation from Sentebale. The claims about the breakdown in relationships between the charity's trustees and Chandauka are supported by statements from Harry and Seeiso. However, the story could benefit from more precise details regarding the specific governance issues and the exact nature of the legal actions taken by Chandauka. The involvement of Britain's Charity Commission is mentioned, but further verification of their specific findings or actions is necessary to fully substantiate the claims made. Overall, the article is largely accurate but lacks some depth in verification of the finer details.

The article attempts to present multiple perspectives, including those of Sophie Chandauka, Prince Harry and Prince Seeiso, and the Charity Commission. However, it leans slightly towards Chandauka's viewpoint by providing more detail on her allegations and less on the responses from the other parties involved. The inclusion of quotes from a former trustee, Kelello Lerotholi, and the Charity Commission does help to provide some balance, but the story could further benefit from a more detailed exploration of the responses from Prince Harry and the charity's board to ensure a more balanced representation.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that allows readers to follow the narrative easily. The language used is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for a general audience to understand the key points of the story. The use of quotes and direct statements enhances clarity by providing context and supporting evidence. However, the article could benefit from clearer distinctions between verified facts and allegations, as well as more detailed explanations of complex issues like charity governance.

The article cites credible sources such as direct statements from the involved parties, including Sophie Chandauka and Prince Harry, as well as the Charity Commission. These are authoritative sources that lend credibility to the reporting. However, the reliance on a single interview and limited statements may restrict the depth of the source quality. Additional sources, such as independent experts on charity governance or more detailed reports from the Charity Commission, would enhance the reliability and depth of the information presented.

The article provides a reasonable level of transparency by disclosing the sources of its information, such as the statements given to the Press Association and Sky News. However, it lacks detailed explanations of the methodology behind the reporting and does not clearly outline any potential conflicts of interest that could affect impartiality. The basis for some claims, particularly those related to the governance issues and legal actions, is not fully explained, leaving readers without a complete understanding of how conclusions were drawn.