The article seems largely accurate in its depiction of the Trump Organization's announced plans. It presents specific details, such as the appointment of an ethics adviser and the pledge to donate foreign government profits to the US Treasury. However, there is a lack of direct quotes from documents or additional verification from outside experts, which might strengthen the factual basis. The piece also touches on Eric Trump's statement about continuing foreign business, which raises questions about the consistency of the ethical commitments. While the article references past CNN reports to support its claims, additional corroboration from independent sources would bolster its accuracy.

The article attempts to present a balanced view by discussing the Trump Organization's efforts and the ethical implications of these measures. However, it leans towards presenting the organization's viewpoint without sufficiently exploring counterarguments or perspectives from ethics watchdogs and critics. The mention of previous presidents divesting from businesses is a nod to potential ethical concerns, but the article could benefit from more voices weighing in on these issues. Presenting a wider range of opinions, particularly from ethics experts and political analysts, would provide a more nuanced understanding of the potential conflicts of interest and the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

The article is generally well-written, with clear language and a logical structure. It effectively outlines the key measures the Trump Organization plans to implement, such as the appointment of an ethics adviser and the management of Trump's business interests. The tone remains neutral and professional, avoiding emotive language that could influence the reader's perception. However, some sections could be expanded for clarity, particularly regarding the potential implications of the ethical measures and the historical context of presidential business divestment. Overall, the article is accessible to readers but could benefit from additional explanations to fully convey the complexities of the situation.

The article lacks detailed sourcing, which affects its credibility. While it mentions a statement from the Trump Organization and Eric Trump, it does not cite external sources or documents that might corroborate these claims. The inclusion of a prominent Republican lawyer as an ethics adviser is noted, but more information about his background and potential biases would be helpful. The reference to CNN's previous reports is vague and lacks specific citations or hyperlinks, which would allow readers to verify the information independently. The article would benefit from stronger sourcing, including expert opinions and references to relevant legal or ethical guidelines.

The article provides some context regarding the Trump Organization's ethical measures but falls short in fully disclosing potential conflicts of interest. While it mentions that Trump is not required by law to divest from his business interests, it does not delve into the implications of this choice or how it compares with actions taken by previous presidents. The lack of detail on how the company will handle overseas business deals is a significant omission, as it raises questions about the effectiveness of the ethics pledge. Greater transparency about the methodologies used to assess potential conflicts and the criteria for choosing the ethics adviser would enhance the article's credibility.