The article appears to be factually accurate, supported by the BBC's investigation and data from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project. It provides specific figures, such as the military's control over 21% of Myanmar's territory and the resistance's control over 42%, which are backed by research. The use of quotes from individuals like Kyaw and Moe adds verifiability, though these are anonymized and could benefit from additional corroborative evidence. The article's reliance on data and expert opinions lends credibility, although the absence of a military response to the BBC's request for comment leaves a gap in the verification of certain claims.

While the article provides a detailed account of the resistance's perspective, it lacks balance by not including viewpoints from the Myanmar military or government. This omission presents a potential bias, as the narrative focuses heavily on the struggles and successes of the pro-democracy rebels without addressing the military's side of the story. The use of terms like 'extremely dangerous' as attributed to the UN special rapporteur, and emotive quotes from defectors, further skew the narrative towards the resistance's perspective. Including a broader range of viewpoints would enhance the article's fairness and depth.

The article is well-written, with a clear structure that guides the reader through the complex situation in Myanmar. It effectively uses narratives of individuals like Kyaw and Moe to humanize the conflict, making the story engaging. The language is generally clear, though occasionally emotive, which may affect the perceived neutrality. For example, phrases like 'terrorizes' and 'rats in a cage' evoke strong emotions. The article maintains a logical flow, transitioning smoothly from individual stories to broader analyses of military control. Overall, it is accessible and informative, though it could benefit from a more neutral tone in certain sections.

The article cites a variety of sources, including the UN special rapporteur, the US-based Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project, and firsthand accounts from defectors. These sources are credible; however, the reliance on anonymous sources like 'Kyaw' and 'Moe' introduces an element of uncertainty regarding their authenticity. The methodology section adds credibility, detailing the research process and cross-referencing techniques. However, the lack of military or government sources, or independent verification of the defectors' claims, slightly undermines the overall reliability of the article's sources.

The article provides transparency regarding its methodology, explaining how data was collected and verified. It details the process of corroborating information with unaffiliated sources, which is commendable. However, the article falls short in disclosing potential biases of the sources, such as the defectors' motivations or affiliations, which could affect the impartiality of their accounts. Additionally, while the article mentions that the military did not respond to requests for comment, it does not explore alternative ways to present their perspective, which could provide a more comprehensive view of the situation.