The article is largely accurate, with several key facts and claims well-supported by external sources. For instance, the claim that Selena Quintanilla was killed by Yolanda Saldívar on March 31, 1995, is verified by multiple reliable sources. Additionally, the article's assertion that Selena's legacy continues through various products and media is generally supported, although specific examples like an AI-powered album are not explicitly verified in the sources. The piece also accurately reflects Selena's cultural significance and the fascination with her story, aligning with broader cultural observations.

However, some claims, such as the exploitation of her memory by the Quintanilla family, are subjective and not directly supported by evidence in the article. These claims could benefit from more concrete evidence or quotes from involved parties. Overall, the article's factual basis is strong, but it includes some subjective interpretations that require careful consideration.

The article presents a balanced view by discussing both the cultural reverence for Selena and the potential exploitation of her memory. It highlights the perspectives of Latinos who view her as a folk hero and those who question the commercialization of her image. However, the article leans slightly towards the narrative of exploitation without providing direct counterarguments from the Quintanilla family or those involved in managing her estate.

By including expert commentary from Diana York Blaine, the piece adds depth to the analysis of cultural fascination with death. Yet, it could enhance balance by incorporating more voices, such as fans, cultural critics, or family representatives, to provide a fuller picture of the ongoing discourse surrounding Selena's legacy.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the discussion of Selena's legacy and cultural significance. The language is accessible, and the tone is neutral, allowing readers to engage with the content without confusion.

The use of expert commentary adds depth and clarity to the analysis, helping to explain complex cultural phenomena. However, some sections could benefit from more concise language to enhance readability. Overall, the article effectively communicates its main points and supports them with relevant examples.

The article references the expertise of Diana York Blaine, a professor at USC, lending credibility to its analysis of cultural fascination with celebrity deaths. However, it lacks direct citations or references to primary sources that would strengthen its claims, such as interviews with the Quintanilla family or sales data for products featuring Selena's likeness.

The reliance on a single expert's perspective could be balanced with additional sources, such as cultural commentators or industry insiders, to provide a more comprehensive view. The article would benefit from more diverse sources to enhance its reliability and depth.

The article provides limited transparency about the sources of its claims and the methodology behind its analysis. While it includes expert commentary from Diana York Blaine, it does not clearly explain how her research was conducted or the basis for her conclusions. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as financial ties to the Quintanilla estate or other stakeholders.

Greater transparency could be achieved by providing more context about the sources used, such as citing studies or providing links to relevant research. This would help readers understand the basis for the claims made and assess the article's impartiality.