Your [...] are very convenient, because you skipped over the part in paragraph 3 of Trump's article where they go over some of his main "achievements", which are presented neutrally and some people might consider positive:
[Trump] signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which cut taxes for individuals and businesses and rescinded the individual health insurance mandate penalty of the Affordable Care Act. He appointed 54 federal appellate judges and three U.S. Supreme Court justices. He initiated a trade war with China and withdrew the U.S. from the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the Paris Agreement on climate change, and the Iran nuclear deal.
and you also cut out a mention of a pretty significant Biden failure (in outcome, at least):
[Biden] oversaw the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan that had been negotiated and begun under the previous administration, ending the war in Afghanistan, during which the Afghan government collapsed and the Taliban seized control.
But moreover, the introductory paragraphs of a Wikipedia article, like the introduction to most pieces of writing, are meant to establish an overview. Assuming that the reader reads nothing else, what basic idea should they have of the thing?
Donald Trump spent his four years in office much like he spent most of his previous business career: lying and committing various forms of fraud. While president, just for variety, he added lying and committing fraud about COVID, and, oh yes, inciting a violent insurrection to overthrow the American government. That should be the first thing you take away. He may have accidentally done some positive things, but none of them make the lead paragraph, because they won't be in the top 3-5 things that history remembers him for. "Scholars and historians rank Trump as one of the worst presidents in American history" appears near the end of the introduction (right before jumping back into more recent events), because that's a germane summary.
Joe Biden has spent his 2+ years in office being a relatively uninteresting mainstream-to-slightly-progressive Democrat. That should be the first thing you take away. He's not perfect, but he's doing normal president stuff. Once he's no longer president, no doubt his article will be updated to look like Obama's, which currently ends the introduction with:
Rankings by scholars and historians, in which [Obama] has been featured since 2010, place him in the middle to upper tier of American presidents.
...that is, not saintlike, but, you know, fine.