The article provides a detailed account of the situation at Columbia University, highlighting the impact of policy changes on campus protests and student sentiment. It accurately reflects the tension and fear among students, as corroborated by multiple student and faculty accounts. However, some claims, such as the exact number of visas canceled and the specific criteria used for these cancellations, require further verification. The story mentions the Trump administration's actions against universities, which aligns with documented federal policies, but the precise details of funding suspensions and investigations need additional confirmation from official sources.

The article presents multiple perspectives, including those of students, faculty, and government officials. It highlights the concerns of students fearing reprisals and the relief felt by some Jewish students due to policy changes. However, it leans slightly towards the narrative of student victimization without equally exploring the rationale behind the administration's actions. The lack of a detailed response from Columbia University or federal agencies on the accusations made contributes to an imbalance in the presentation of viewpoints.

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow that guides readers through the complex issues of campus activism and administrative policies. It uses straightforward language and provides detailed accounts of individual experiences, making it accessible to readers unfamiliar with the situation. However, the inclusion of more background information on the specific policies and their implications would enhance clarity further.

The article relies on interviews with students and faculty, some of whom are anonymous, which can affect the credibility of the sources. While anonymity is justified due to fear of reprisals, it limits the ability to assess the reliability of these accounts fully. The inclusion of named sources, such as professors and student activists, adds credibility. The lack of direct quotes or statements from university officials or federal agencies, however, weakens the overall source quality.

The article provides context for the policy changes and the resulting campus atmosphere but lacks transparency regarding the methodology of its interviews, particularly how students were selected and the extent of their representation. The use of anonymous sources is explained, yet the article could benefit from more explicit disclosure of any potential biases or conflicts of interest among the sources cited. The absence of direct responses from the university or government officials also limits transparency.