I'm not seeing what's biased about Donald Trump's article?
It's all accurate info citing legal cases where he was literally convicted of things. A president being convicted of the things he's been convicted of is the story. Not mentioning it in the intro and elsewhere would be biased.
Your issue seems to be not with "bias" but with how topicality of Donald Trump's actions require them to be prominent within an encyclopedia entry. Which has nothing to do with bias of the editors.
I don't think I would ever work for a place that required IQ tests because that would mean that they didn't not just understand the racist and ableist origins of IQ testing (which is a red flag for an employer, imo) but they also were ignorant of the fact that they don't actually tell you much. Using IQ tests as a meaningful way to measure intelligence has long been debunked by academics who study intelligence.
It's all accurate info citing legal cases where he was literally convicted of things. A president being convicted of the things he's been convicted of is the story. Not mentioning it in the intro and elsewhere would be biased.
Your issue seems to be not with "bias" but with how topicality of Donald Trump's actions require them to be prominent within an encyclopedia entry. Which has nothing to do with bias of the editors.