The article provides a factual recount of the South Korea plane crash, focusing on the role of an 'unusual' concrete wall near the runway. The information presented is largely accurate, such as the details of the crash and expert opinions on the wall's role. The article cites specific measurements, like the wall being 250m from the runway, which adds to its credibility. However, certain claims, such as the assertion that the crash would have been less deadly without the wall, rely heavily on expert opinions rather than concrete evidence. The article could strengthen its accuracy by providing more data or studies supporting these claims. Additionally, while it mentions the pilot's report of a bird strike, it does not delve into verifying this aspect, which could be crucial to understanding the crash's cause.

The article predominantly features perspectives from aviation experts who criticize the presence of the concrete wall, such as David Learmount and Christian Beckert. While these insights are valuable, the piece lacks substantial input from authorities responsible for airport safety standards, which could provide a counterbalance to the criticism. The article does mention the South Korea transport ministry's stance that similar structures exist elsewhere, but this is not explored in depth. Including more viewpoints, such as interviews with airport officials or safety regulators, would enhance the article's balance. Moreover, the article slightly leans towards suggesting that the wall was a critical factor in the crash's severity, without equally considering other factors, such as pilot error or mechanical failure.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through the sequence of events and expert analysis. The language is mostly professional and accessible, making complex aviation concepts understandable to a general audience. However, there are instances of emotive language, such as describing the crash as South Korea's 'worst-ever,' which could detract from the article's neutrality. Additionally, while the article effectively uses expert quotes to elucidate technical points, it could benefit from clearer transitions between sections to maintain coherence. Overall, the article succeeds in clearly conveying the main issues but should avoid language that might unduly influence the reader's perception.

The article references several credible sources, including aviation experts like David Learmount and Chris Kingswood, as well as international news agencies like Reuters and Yonhap. These sources lend authority to the claims made about the crash and the concrete wall. However, the article could improve by directly quoting or linking to official reports or statements from the South Korean authorities or Jeju Air, which would provide a more rounded perspective. Additionally, it relies significantly on expert opinions without attributing certain technical details, such as the exact specifications of safety regulations regarding obstacles near runways, to official documentation.

While the article explains the context of the crash and introduces various expert opinions, it falls short on transparency regarding the basis for certain claims. For instance, it doesn't specify the methodology behind the assertion that the crash would have been less deadly without the wall. Furthermore, while it mentions that other airports have similar structures, it doesn't provide examples or data to contextualize this claim. The article fails to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that the experts might have, such as connections to aviation safety organizations or the airline industry, which could influence their perspectives. Increasing transparency through clearer attribution of claims and potential biases would enhance the article's credibility.