The article presents several claims that are largely accurate but require further verification. The assertion that Vatican officials asked visitors not to take selfies with the late Pope Francis is supported by other sources, though the exact nature of the statement (formal or informal) is not fully detailed in the article. The claim of 'almost 130,000' mourners is not directly corroborated by independent sources, though the general description of large crowds is consistent with other reports. The article mentions a 1996 Vatican directive about photography, which is not directly confirmed by other sources but aligns with the Vatican's known protocols. Overall, the story accurately captures the essence of the events but lacks complete verification of specific details.

The article predominantly focuses on the Vatican's perspective and the public's reaction to the selfie-taking phenomenon. While it captures the tension between modern technology and traditional rituals, it doesn't provide a comprehensive range of viewpoints. For instance, it could include perspectives from mourners who took selfies, explaining their motivations, or insights from experts on cultural shifts in mourning practices. The narrative leans towards portraying the selfie-taking as disrespectful, potentially overlooking nuanced views on the matter.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, making it easy for readers to follow the main narrative. It logically progresses from describing the event to discussing public reactions and the Vatican's response. The language is straightforward, and the tone is neutral, allowing readers to form their own opinions. However, the article could benefit from clearer distinctions between verified facts and claims that require further confirmation. Overall, it effectively communicates the key points without unnecessary complexity.

The article primarily relies on a statement from the Vatican and footage from CNN. While these are credible sources, the lack of direct quotes or named officials limits the depth of reporting. The article could benefit from a wider array of sources, such as interviews with Vatican officials, mourners, or cultural analysts. The absence of direct attribution for some claims, like the exact number of visitors, affects the overall source quality. The reliance on social media comments and TikTok videos adds a layer of public sentiment but lacks authoritative backing.

The article does not provide a clear methodology for how information was gathered, particularly regarding the visitor numbers and the Vatican's directives. It does not disclose whether the reporter was present at the event or relied solely on secondary sources. The lack of explanation about how the Vatican's statement was obtained or verified reduces transparency. Additionally, the article does not mention any potential conflicts of interest or biases in its reporting, which could affect reader trust.