User:Mkretzsch/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
Constructivism (philosophy of education)

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I believe the constructivist philosophy of education resumes why many would choose to willfully increase the amount of "internet" in their curriculum. The theory posits that learners acquire knowledge through active engagement rather than passive transmission, and many educators seek to engage students with activities on the internet.

Evaluate the article
(Compose a detailed evaluation of the article here, considering each of the key aspects listed above. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what a useful Wikipedia article evaluation looks like.)

The lead section gives a good summary of the theory but doesn't provide much insight into what will be covered in the subsequent sections.

The content of the article is mostly on topic but some sections may have some irrelevant information

The tone is flagged by Wikipedia as being too persuasive. I'm having difficulty finding what was the reason for the flag.

There are sufficient sources and citations provided when needed. One of the sources mentioned in the text isn't cited below, however (according to Talk page)

The organization seems very flawed in this article, as there are too many separate sections that are interrelated to different degrees. I don't have a proposal to improve it, but it certainly is not easy to read.

There is one image of Piaget which is alright but it doesn't really add to understanding and it is unappealing. It is natural that an article of this sort would not have many images as it is on the subject of a philosophical theory which can't be concretely visualized. However, there could be imagery of children or adults learning through play or experiences.

In the Talk page there is a concern that it was edited by students.

My overall impression was that the article was very thorough but difficult to digest due to the poor organization of the later sections. The topic is broad and student editors have added in sections for many relevant subtopics but some of these may be left better as independent articles, "see also", or synthesis of similar ideas into longer sections.