The story presents several verifiable claims, such as the formation of a new government in Greenland, the planned visit by JD and Usha Vance, and the U.S. interest in Greenland. These claims align with available reports and statements from relevant parties. However, the narrative around U.S. President Donald Trump's intentions and the reactions from Greenland and Denmark could benefit from further corroboration. For example, the assertion that 85% of Greenlanders oppose U.S. annexation is supported by a cited poll, but the story would be stronger with more detailed polling data. Furthermore, the claim about the coalition's purpose to resist U.S. pressure is consistent with statements from Greenlandic leaders.

The article provides perspectives from Greenlandic leaders, U.S. officials, and Danish authorities, which helps present a balanced view of the situation. However, it leans slightly towards emphasizing the opposition to U.S. intentions without equally exploring potential U.S. strategic interests or benefits. While it mentions Trump's security concerns, the narrative predominantly focuses on the resistance and protests against the U.S. visit, which might overshadow other viewpoints.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow from the formation of the Greenlandic government to the U.S. visit. The language is straightforward, making it accessible to a general audience. However, some sentences are densely packed with information, which might challenge readers unfamiliar with the geopolitical context. Simplifying these sections could improve overall comprehension.

The article references local media, statements from political figures, and polling data, which adds credibility. However, it lacks direct quotes from sources or detailed attributions, relying instead on summaries of what these sources report. The story would benefit from a clearer presentation of the primary sources and their credibility, such as interviews or official statements, to enhance the authority of the information presented.

The article provides some context about the political situation in Greenland and the U.S. interest in the region. However, it does not explain the methodology behind the polling data or detail the sources of specific claims, such as the exact nature of the protests or the coalition's discussions. Greater transparency in these areas would help readers understand the basis of the claims and any potential biases.