The article accurately describes the nature of international call scams, such as the Wangiri scam, and provides correct information about potential risks and protective measures. The claims about the scams align with widely recognized cybersecurity issues. However, the article would benefit from including direct references to studies or reports that support its assertions, particularly regarding the prevalence of these scams. For instance, citing statistics from telecommunications organizations or cybersecurity firms would enhance the factual basis. While the advice on avoiding scam calls is practical and generally accepted, the article lacks specific data points or quotes from authorities in the field to substantiate its claims fully.

The article primarily presents the perspective of the tech expert, Kurt Knutsson, without incorporating views from other stakeholders, such as telecom companies or consumer protection agencies. This results in a somewhat one-sided narrative. For improved balance, the article could include insights from telecommunications providers about their efforts to combat such scams or from consumer advocacy groups offering additional protective tips. Additionally, discussing the regulatory landscape and how different regions address these scams could provide a broader context. The lack of opposing viewpoints or alternative analyses leaves the article with a limited scope, potentially missing out on critical discussions around industry accountability.

The article excels in clarity with a well-structured and concise presentation of information. It uses straightforward language and logical flow, making complex concepts accessible to a broad audience. The advice on avoiding scam calls is presented in a clear, step-by-step format, enhancing its practical utility. The tone remains professional and neutral, avoiding overly technical jargon that could confuse readers. However, some sections could benefit from expanded explanations, such as a more detailed exploration of how call-blocking apps function or examples of reputable antivirus solutions. Overall, the article is easy to follow and informative, but a few more detailed clarifications would further enhance its clarity.

The article lacks direct citations and references to authoritative sources, which affects the perceived credibility of the information presented. While it mentions advice from a tech expert, there is no indication of specific studies, reports, or experts beyond Kurt Knutsson. This absence of diverse and authoritative sources limits the article's reliability. Including references to cybersecurity reports, statements from telecom companies, or data from regulatory bodies like the FCC would have strengthened the source quality. The article could improve by attributing information to specific and credible sources, ensuring that readers can verify the claims and trust the guidance provided.

The article does not clearly disclose any affiliations or potential conflicts of interest, which is a significant gap in transparency. While it mentions Kurt Knutsson's role as a tech journalist and contributor for Fox News, it does not provide full transparency about any affiliations that might influence the content. Additionally, there is a promotional element for Knutsson's newsletter and services, which could introduce bias. The article could improve transparency by explicitly stating any commercial relationships or interests tied to the advice given. Providing more context about the methodologies behind the suggested protection strategies would also enhance the article's transparency.