The story provides a largely accurate representation of public opinion regarding presidential and judicial power, based on the AP-NORC poll. It accurately reports that about half of Americans believe the president has too much power, while only about three in ten think the same about federal judges. These figures align with the poll's findings and are supported by related surveys from Pew Research and other reputable sources.

However, some claims, such as the statement about Trump issuing a 'record number of executive orders' and defying court orders on immigration, require further verification. The story does not provide specific numbers or examples to substantiate these claims, which could impact the perceived accuracy. Additionally, the assertion that the GOP-controlled Congress has mostly deferred to Trump needs more concrete examples to verify its accuracy fully.

The article's reliance on a single poll and its general alignment with other polls from credible sources like Pew and CNN-SSRS lend credibility to its factual accuracy. However, the lack of specific details in some areas, such as executive orders and congressional deference, slightly detracts from a perfect score.

The article presents a range of perspectives on the issue of presidential power, including views from Democrats, Republicans, and independents. It highlights the partisan divide, with Democrats and independents more likely to believe that Trump has overstepped his powers, while Republicans are more concerned about judicial overreach.

Despite this range of viewpoints, the article could benefit from a more balanced presentation of the arguments supporting Trump's use of executive power. While it includes some Republican perspectives, such as Linda Seck's view that Trump's power is not unlimited, it primarily focuses on criticisms of the president's actions. The inclusion of more detailed counterarguments or examples of instances where Trump's use of power was deemed appropriate or necessary by his supporters would enhance balance.

Overall, the article does a reasonable job of presenting different perspectives, but a more equitable representation of pro-Trump viewpoints could improve its balance.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting information in a logical order. It begins with an overview of the main findings from the AP-NORC poll and then delves into the partisan divides and specific issues related to presidential and judicial power.

The language used is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for readers to understand the key points and conclusions. However, some sections, particularly those discussing specific actions by Trump, could benefit from more detailed explanations or examples to enhance clarity.

Overall, the article's clarity is strong, but providing more context and detail in certain areas would improve comprehension and ensure that readers fully grasp the nuances of the issues discussed.

The article relies on data from the AP-NORC poll, a reputable source known for its rigorous methodology and representative sampling. This lends credibility to the story's claims about public opinion on presidential and judicial power.

In addition to the AP-NORC poll, the article references other credible sources, such as Pew Research and CNN-SSRS, to provide context and support for its claims. These sources are well-regarded for their reliability and accuracy in public opinion research, further enhancing the article's source quality.

However, the article could improve by providing more detailed attribution for some of its claims, such as the specific examples of executive orders and instances of congressional deference. Including additional sources or expert opinions on these topics would strengthen the overall source quality.

The article provides some transparency regarding the methodology of the AP-NORC poll, including the sample size and margin of error. This transparency helps readers understand the basis for the claims made about public opinion.

However, the article lacks transparency in other areas. For example, it does not provide specific examples or data to support claims about Trump's record number of executive orders or instances of defying court orders. Additionally, the article could benefit from more detailed explanations of the poll's methodology, such as how respondents were selected and whether the results were weighted to reflect the U.S. population.

Improving transparency in these areas would help readers better understand the context and basis for the article's claims, leading to a more informed and credible presentation.