In view of the current political polarization, which includes scientific issues, e.g., climate change and vaccination, I suggest adding another three items to the list. I put these up for discussion. Please comment and suggest changes as you wish.
Consider the reputation of the source of the information. For example, the New York Times has a longstanding reputation of holding its reporters to high ethical standards. A reporter who reports false information stands to immediately lose his/her job. Contrast this with social media where anyone can say and post virtually anything they wish with no fear of consequences.
Consider the credentials of the person giving the particular view. Do they have training (degrees) and/or other expertise in the area about which they are speaking/writing? Are they connected to a reputable organization, e.g, university. A university will readily dismiss a professor for knowingly, putting out false information. Hence, such a connection provides a powerful filter for the truthfulness. In stark contrast is social media were there is minimal oversight and any person can put out virtually anything without fear of consequence.
Consider the motives of the person espousing the point of view. Are they addressing and proposing tenable solutions to real problems, or is their own personal gain primary.