✕ Sensationalism [8/10]: The headline uses emotionally charged and promotional language like 'Sussex-approved People magazine' to frame the story as insider royal news, which exaggerates the significance of the source and distracts from the factual event.

"Prince Harry's tribute to late Queen: Sussex-approved People magazine reveals Duke arranged for flowers to be placed on his grandmother's grave"

✕ Loaded Language [7/10]: The phrase 'Sussex-approved' implies endorsement or exclusivity without clarification, injecting a promotional tone that favours the Sussexes and undermines neutrality.

"Sussex-approved People magazine reveals"

✕ Loaded Language [8/10]: Phrases like 'fiercely criticism' and 'cash in on Australia' carry negative connotations that frame the Sussexes’ visit as exploitative rather than neutral reporting on public reaction.

"The Sussexes were accused of using their royal links to cash in on Australia"

✕ Editorializing [7/10]: The description of Meghan’s speech includes selective, emotionally charged quotes that highlight personal grievance without balancing commentary, suggesting a narrative of victimhood.

"She also told the crowd her experience in the public eye had been 'very difficult' but that people's criticism of her had to do with their own 'projec"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [6/10]: The article repeatedly contrasts Harry’s absence with the full royal turnout, subtly framing his choice as a rejection of duty or family, rather than a personal decision.

"Prince Harry remained absent from the late Queen's centenary celebrations, as King Charles led a 'slimmed down monarchy' across the pond."

✕ Vague Attribution [6/10]: The article attributes claims to 'according to People magazine' without specifying who at People reported it or what evidence they provided, weakening source transparency.

"According to People magazine, one of the Sussexes' favoured publications, the Duke of Sussex... sent flowers"

✓ Proper Attribution [8/10]: The article correctly attributes Meghan’s quote to her public appearance, allowing readers to assess the context of her statement.

"I've spent all my life investing in women, can I finally invest in me?"

✕ Omission [5/10]: The article does not clarify whether the Queen’s grave is publicly accessible or whether such floral tributes are common, leaving readers without context about royal burial customs.

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [7/10]: The article provides background on Harry’s past commemorations and family dynamics, offering useful context about his relationship with the royal family.

"Since quitting the Royal Family and relocating stateside with his wife, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry has returned to Queen Elizabeth's burial site on two occasions"