This is a fine attempt to lay some analysis on Hillary Clinton's trip to Asia, but as the article acknowledges, not enough has happened yet to draw any deep conclusions. There are a few thoughtful insights here, though, that make this a worthwhile read (quotes).

There's surprising lack of insight or information in this Economist piece.

The article provides some information about why Clinton chose to tour Asia, but it did not delve deeply and thoroughly enough into the issues. I also found the article slightly confusing to read and interpret, which could be assisted through expanding certain sections but at the same time rewriting them into more concise and clear sentences. I feel that background information was lacking in some sections, but overall it was a fair article to read.

I like the overall style of the Economist. Their articles tend to provide a wider scope of knowledge about a topic. This article for example talks about Clinton's tour of Asia but the main point of the article is to shine light on Clinton as secretary of state. It's more about Clinton as a politician and how this trip might prove her tactics. The article does not go into depth about the trip or even provide quotes but the importance of the trip is made clear.

I thought this article was informative, but I think it needs to be more specific on where it got its facts from.