Analysis Summary:

The article's accuracy is mixed. While the general premise of US efforts to end the Ukraine war is plausible, the specific claim about "Trump's team" and their proposals having "major gaps" is difficult to verify with the provided sources. The article exhibits moderate bias by framing the situation with a negative connotation regarding the proposals.

Detailed Analysis:

• Claim:** "US intensifying bid to end Ukraine war" - This is a general claim that is plausible given the ongoing conflict and international interest in resolution. Verification Source #4 supports the idea that the US should continue to support Ukraine, which could be interpreted as part of an effort to end the war.
• Claim:** "Negotiations are gathering pace" - This is difficult to verify directly with the provided sources. While Verification Source #2 mentions the unclear end state of the war, it doesn't explicitly confirm or deny the pace of negotiations.
• Claim:** "proposals being put forward by Trump's team still have major gaps" - This is the most specific claim and the hardest to verify. None of the provided sources mention proposals from "Trump's team" or their specific content. This claim relies on information not provided in the verification sources.
• Overall Tone:** The article's tone suggests a critical view of the proposals, implying they are inadequate. This contributes to a moderate bias.

Supporting Evidence/Contradictions:

• Agreement:** Verification Source #4 supports the general idea of US involvement in supporting Ukraine, which aligns with the claim of the US intensifying its bid to end the war.
• Lack of Coverage:** None of the provided sources cover the specific claim about "Trump's team" and their proposals. This makes it impossible to verify the accuracy of this statement using the provided information.
• Internal Knowledge:** Without specific details about the proposals, it's impossible to assess the accuracy of the "major gaps" claim. Internal knowledge of current political dynamics suggests that any proposals from a potential future administration would be subject to scrutiny and debate.