The factual accuracy of the story is relatively strong, though it hinges on several claims that require verification. The report states that Armen Sargsyan, leader of the 'Arbat' battalion, died after an explosion in Moscow. This claim aligns with various sources, but the precise details of his death and the explosion's context need confirmation. The story accurately mentions Sargsyan's alleged criminal background and his association with former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, which are verifiable claims based on historical records. However, the assertion that the assassination was 'carefully planned and ordered' by unknown parties is speculative without concrete evidence or official statements. The mention of other individuals injured in the blast and the description of the explosion's location are specific, yet require corroboration from independent sources to ensure precision.

The story presents a perspective that leans towards reporting on the pro-Russian paramilitary leader's death without deeply exploring the broader geopolitical implications or the Ukrainian perspective. While it mentions the Ukrainian security service's allegations against Sargsyan, it does not provide a detailed counter-narrative or insights from Ukrainian officials or analysts. This could suggest a slight imbalance, as the piece may inadvertently emphasize the Russian narrative. Including more voices from the Ukrainian side or neutral experts could provide a more balanced view of the incident and its significance in the ongoing conflict.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, providing a coherent narrative of the events leading to Armen Sargsyan's death. The language is straightforward, with a logical progression from the explosion to the broader context of Sargsyan's alleged activities and his connections. The inclusion of eyewitness accounts and specific details about the explosion's aftermath adds to the story's clarity. However, some parts of the article, such as the references to previous attacks on pro-Russian figures, could be more explicitly connected to the main narrative to avoid potential confusion for readers unfamiliar with the broader context.

The article relies on 'usually reliable Telegram sources' and a quote from TASS, a Russian news agency, which indicates a potential bias in source selection. While Telegram channels can provide timely updates, their reliability can vary significantly, and they often lack the rigorous fact-checking processes of established news organizations. TASS, being a state-run agency, may not always provide unbiased information, especially on politically sensitive matters. The article would benefit from additional sources, such as independent journalists, international news agencies, or official statements from Ukrainian authorities, to enhance credibility and provide a more comprehensive view.

The article provides some context about Armen Sargsyan's background and the allegations against him, which helps readers understand the significance of his death. However, it lacks transparency regarding the methodology of information gathering, particularly the reliance on Telegram sources. The story does not clarify how these sources were verified or if multiple sources confirmed the claims. Additionally, there is no disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, especially given the sensitive nature of the geopolitical context. Greater transparency about the sources and the verification process would enhance the article's credibility.