The article provides a largely accurate account of the plane crash, including details about the incident, the aircraft involved, and the subsequent investigation. It accurately reports the number of casualties and the involvement of U.S. investigators. However, it makes several assertions, such as the possible causes of the crash and expert opinions on the landing gear issue, without citing specific sources for these claims. For instance, the article states that 'many experts say the landing gear issue was likely the main cause of the crash,' but it does not specify which experts or studies support this claim. The mention of a bird strike warning and distress signal are also not attributed to particular sources, which raises questions about the verifiability of these details.

The article attempts to present a balanced view by including insights from aviation experts like John Hansman and Najmedin Meshkati, who offer differing opinions on the cause of the crash. However, it predominantly focuses on the technical aspects of the incident, with less emphasis on the human impact and the perspectives of the victims' families. The brief mention of Park Han Shin's criticism regarding the government's handling of the bodies suggests a lack of thorough exploration of this viewpoint. The article could enhance its balance by providing more space for these human-interest aspects and potentially incorporating responses from government officials to provide a more comprehensive view of the situation.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, providing a logical flow of information from the crash details to the subsequent investigation and expert analysis. The language is professional, with technical terms explained in context, such as the hydraulic control systems and the role of the localizer. However, there are sections where the information could be more concise, as the repetition of the HuffPost funding appeal disrupts the narrative flow. Additionally, the transition between different aspects of the story, such as moving from technical expert analysis to the emotional impact on families, could be smoother to maintain reader engagement and clarity throughout.

The article includes quotes from credible experts like John Hansman and Najmedin Meshkati, which contributes to its authority on aviation matters. However, it lacks detailed attribution for other claims, such as those regarding the bird strike warning and the exact nature of the mechanical failures. The absence of direct quotes from the U.S. investigators on-site or specific references to the safety records of Boeing 737-800 aircraft weakens the article's source quality. Additionally, while it mentions the involvement of the Associated Press, it does not detail the methodology or sources used to gather the information presented, leaving room for improvement in affirming the credibility and reliability of the article's content.

The article provides some context about the investigative process and the roles of different entities involved, such as the U.S. investigators and the South Korean Transport Ministry. However, it lacks transparency in explaining the basis for certain claims, such as the experts' opinions and the specifics of the safety inspections. The mention of a seven-day national mourning period and the challenges faced by bereaved families adds some depth, but the article could benefit from disclosing more about its information-gathering process and potential affiliations of the experts cited. Greater transparency in these areas would enhance the reader's understanding of the article's foundation and the potential biases influencing its narrative.