The story accurately reports on the Army's plan to resume limited use of horse-drawn caissons for funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. Key details, such as the start date of June 2 and the limitation to two funerals per day, up to 10 per week, are consistent with official statements. The article correctly identifies past issues with horse care, including the deaths of two horses in 2022 due to poor conditions.

However, the story could benefit from additional verification regarding the current status of the horses' health and the specific improvements made to their living conditions. Although the article mentions efforts to acquire new horses and improve facilities, it lacks detailed evidence or external verification of these claims.

Overall, the article is factually accurate but would benefit from more comprehensive evidence to support its claims about the improvements and readiness of the caisson program.

The article primarily presents the Army's perspective on the resumption of caisson funerals, highlighting efforts to improve horse care and maintain the tradition. It quotes Army officials and provides a statement from the acting superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery.

While the article does a good job of explaining the Army's actions and intentions, it lacks input from independent experts or stakeholders, such as animal welfare organizations, that could provide additional perspectives on the care of the horses. Including these viewpoints would offer a more balanced view of the situation and address potential concerns about animal welfare more thoroughly.

The article is well-structured and clearly presents the information about the resumption of caisson funerals. It logically outlines the timeline of events, from the suspension of the program to the planned resumption, and provides relevant background information.

The language is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for readers to understand the significance of the Army's actions. The article effectively communicates the key points without unnecessary jargon or complexity, contributing to a high level of clarity.

The article cites credible sources, such as Army officials and the acting superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery. These sources are authoritative and directly involved in the operations being reported, lending credibility to the information presented.

However, the article could improve its source quality by including insights from independent experts, such as veterinarians or animal welfare advocates, to provide a more comprehensive view of the situation. This would help corroborate the claims made by the Army and offer additional context on the improvements to horse care.

The article provides a clear explanation of the Army's plans and the reasons for the previous suspension of caisson funerals. It details the improvements made to horse care, including the acquisition of new horses and enhanced facilities.

However, the article lacks transparency regarding the methodology used to verify the Army's claims about improvements. It does not disclose whether any independent assessments were conducted or if the information is solely based on Army statements. Greater transparency in this area would strengthen the article's credibility.