The article's accuracy is moderate, as it primarily relies on a report from The New Yorker without providing additional verification or direct quotes from involved parties. The claim about Trump refusing to participate in a sketch due to concerns over appearance lacks corroborative evidence. While the reference to Susan Morrison's profile adds some credibility, the article does not include direct quotes or statements from Trump or 'SNL' staff, which would strengthen its factual basis. The lack of primary sources or additional context leaves room for skepticism about the veracity of the claims.

The article exhibits a lack of balance, focusing mainly on a potentially negative portrayal of Donald Trump without providing a broader range of perspectives. It cites a critical view from Seth Meyers without offering any positive or neutral viewpoints that might present a more rounded picture of the events. Additionally, the piece includes an editorialized conclusion about HuffPost's journalistic mission, which diverts focus from the main story and suggests an underlying bias. The absence of commentary from 'SNL' creators or other involved parties further skews the narrative.

The article is relatively clear in its language and structure, presenting the narrative in a straightforward and engaging manner. However, the inclusion of unrelated information about HuffPost's funding appeal slightly disrupts the flow. The tone remains consistent with a narrative style, though it could benefit from more precise transitions between sections to enhance coherence. Overall, the article is readable and maintains attention, but the occasional digressions and lack of focus on the main topic hinder its overall clarity.

The article's source quality is lacking as it heavily relies on secondary reporting from The New Yorker without citing any primary sources. The lack of direct quotes from Trump, 'SNL' staff, or other firsthand witnesses diminishes the reliability of the claims. The article does not reference any authoritative or diverse sources to substantiate its narrative, leading to questions about the thoroughness of its research. This reliance on a single secondary source undermines the credibility and depth of the reporting.

The article provides limited transparency, mainly relying on Susan Morrison’s report from The New Yorker without offering additional context or methodological details. There is no disclosure of potential biases or conflicts of interest related to the reporting. The mention of HuffPost’s funding appeal at the end distracts from the article's main content, suggesting a possible editorial agenda rather than providing transparent and impartial information. Greater transparency regarding the origins and verification of the claims would enhance the article's credibility.