The story accurately reports that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, discussed her experience with postpartum preeclampsia on her podcast. It correctly describes the condition's characteristics and potential risks, citing symptoms such as elevated blood pressure and the possibility of seizures. However, the claim that postpartum preeclampsia is 'so rare' could benefit from more precise statistical context to verify its rarity. The story also accurately mentions Meghan's media ventures, though specific details about these deals are not provided. Overall, the factual content aligns well with known information, but some claims, such as the prevalence of the condition, could be further substantiated.

The article primarily focuses on Meghan's personal experience with postpartum preeclampsia, providing limited perspectives beyond her own and that of Whitney Wolfe Herd. While it effectively highlights an important health issue, the story could benefit from additional viewpoints, such as medical expert commentary, to provide a more balanced understanding of the condition and its impact. The narrative is centered on Meghan's experiences and achievements, which may inadvertently overshadow broader discussions about maternal health challenges.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides the reader through Meghan's personal experience and her subsequent media activities. The language is straightforward, making the content accessible to a broad audience. However, the transition between discussing Meghan's health experience and her media ventures could be smoother to maintain focus on the primary topic without diverting into unrelated areas.

The story cites credible sources by referencing Meghan's podcast and known media outlets like CNN, which adds to its reliability. However, it lacks direct quotes or detailed information from medical professionals that would enhance the credibility of the health-related claims. The inclusion of expert opinions or data from authoritative health organizations would strengthen the source quality and provide a more comprehensive view of postpartum preeclampsia.

The article is transparent about its sources, mentioning Meghan's podcast and contributions from CNN reporters. However, it does not delve into the methodology of how Meghan's statements were verified or how the information about postpartum preeclampsia was sourced. Greater transparency regarding the research process and any potential conflicts of interest, especially concerning Meghan's media ventures, would improve the article's transparency score.