The article provides a generally accurate account of Jiggly Caliente's death, career, and legacy. It correctly states her age at the time of death, her participation in 'RuPaul's Drag Race,' and her role in other TV series like 'Pose' and 'Broad City.' The article also accurately reports her being a judge on 'Drag Race Philippines.' However, the article does not specify the exact cause of her death, only mentioning a severe infection leading to leg amputation, which is an area needing further verification. Additionally, while it captures the essence of the tributes from the 'Drag Race' community, these should be further substantiated with direct quotes or additional sources.

The article predominantly focuses on the tributes and positive aspects of Jiggly Caliente's life and career, which is appropriate given the context of her passing. However, it lacks a broader perspective on any controversies or challenges she may have faced, which could provide a more balanced view of her life. The piece highlights her impact on the LGBTQ+ community and her representation in media, but it does not explore other viewpoints or opinions that might offer a fuller picture of her influence and legacy.

The article is well-structured and easy to follow, with a clear narrative flow that guides the reader through Jiggly Caliente's life, career, and the circumstances surrounding her death. The language is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for a general audience to understand. The tone is respectful and appropriate for the subject matter, maintaining a sense of dignity and homage to the late performer.

The article relies heavily on social media statements from Jiggly Caliente's family and tributes from her peers, which are credible but limited in scope. There is a lack of diverse sources or expert opinions that could provide additional context or analysis. The reliance on Instagram posts, while direct, could be supplemented with interviews or statements from industry professionals or community leaders to enhance the reliability and depth of the reporting.

The article is transparent in its use of quotes and statements from social media, clearly attributing them to specific individuals. However, it does not provide much context about the sources of these statements or any methodology behind the reporting. There is no disclosure of any potential conflicts of interest, and the article does not explain how the information was gathered or verified, which could improve reader trust and understanding.