The story provides a detailed account of recent changes in IRS leadership, including the appointment and subsequent removal of Gary Shapley as acting commissioner. The factual claims, such as Shapley's brief tenure and his replacement by Michael Faulkender, are supported by multiple sources, including a White House official and a source briefed on the matter. The story also references the New York Times as the first to report on Shapley's ouster, adding credibility through external verification. However, the narrative around the political context and internal dynamics, such as the alleged panic among civil servants and the controversial data-sharing deal, would benefit from further corroboration to ensure comprehensive accuracy.

The article attempts to present a balanced view by including perspectives from different stakeholders, such as the IRS, the Treasury Department, and political figures. It notes the political implications of Shapley's appointment and removal, highlighting Republican support and the concerns of Democratic figures. However, the article could enhance balance by incorporating more direct quotes or statements from those involved, such as Shapley, Faulkender, or IRS staff, to provide a fuller picture of the motivations and reactions.

The article is generally well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the sequence of events. The language is clear and concise, making the complex topic accessible to a broad audience. However, the inclusion of more background information on the IRS leadership structure and the implications of the data-sharing deal could improve clarity for readers unfamiliar with the subject matter.

The article cites credible sources, including a White House official, a source familiar with the situation, and the New York Times. The reliance on these authoritative sources enhances the reliability of the information presented. However, the story could further improve source quality by including direct statements from the IRS or Treasury Department, providing firsthand accounts of the leadership changes and policy implications.

While the article provides a clear narrative of the events leading to the leadership change at the IRS, it lacks explicit disclosure of the methodology used to gather information. The story mentions sources but does not detail how these sources were accessed or verified. Greater transparency about the reporting process, such as the use of anonymous sources or the nature of the briefings mentioned, would enhance the article's credibility.