The article did a pretty good job of explaining what a multiferroic material is. However, the first sentence states that this is a potential source of energy.

The article did a pretty good job of explaining what a multiferroic material is. However, the first sentence states that this is a potential source of energy. So I expect the article to explain how this is a potential source of energy. In which case the relevant information is not how does it work, but how much electricity does it produce. You could write an article entitled "Material Transmits Engergy for Free!" and talk about cuprate-perovskite ceramic and superconductivity and how it works with electron pairs, etc. And it sounds great, especially if you don't mention that it only works if it is cooled by liquid nitrogen. Frankly, this material sounds a bit like a thermocouple. Those produce electricity from heat, too, about several microvolts, which isn't even going to power my wristwatch. It isn't even going to power my nano-machine! The magnitude of the effect in question is kind of a key thing to know if you state "free, green energy", since I'm wanting 110V at 10A out of my green energy. Thermocouples are about 9 orders of magnitude away from what "free, green energy" requires, and 9 orders of magnitude is a huge thing to leave out of an article. It's like leaving off the fact that superconductivity requires temperatures slightly warmer than Pluto (and that omission is only 2 orders of magnitude).