User:Argoncarbon/Evaluate an Article

Which article are you evaluating?
I am evaluating the article for thermally activated delayed fluorescence (TADF).

Why you have chosen this article to evaluate?
I chose this article because I have conducted research related to this topic and therefore already have familiarity with the content. As well, TADF is not widely known by non-chemists, so it is interesting to see how the article describes the phenomenon to the general public. My understanding of TADF before reading the article is that it is the emission from a singlet state as a result of a triplet electron undergoing reverse intersystem crossing, which requires a small singlet-triplet energy gap.

Lead Section
The first sentence of the lead section does a poor job describing the phenomenon concisely and precisely as it uses vague wording and has a confusing structure. The rest of the lead section manages to define TADF clearly, but does not provide a summary of all the major sections of the body of the article.

Content
All of the content of the article is related to the topic, and covers all of the important aspects of TADF. However, the history section is short and does not go into much detail about the development of TADF materials in recent years and the current state of the field. Inclusion of recent major developments would make the article more up-to-date.

Tone and Balance
The article only discusses facts regarding the TADF process and does not contain any personal opinions, which makes its tone neutral.

Sources and References
Sources for the article includes several reviews on TADF from highly reputable journals and some research papers, with the most recent source being from 2017. I found that a lot of paragraphs do not include any citations, which should be corrected.

Organization and Writing Quality
The article is well-organized. The article is decently well-written, however it sometimes lacks context for the general audience and uses jargon.

Images and Media
Although the article only uses three images, those images are used appropriately and add to the article. I do not think the article needs more media inserts aside from the ones already included. The images are also captioned concisely and include credits to the creators.

Talk Page
There is no discussion on the talk page, suggesting that there was no coordination between different editors of the article. The article is not part of any wikiprojects.

Overall Impressions
Overall, the article is decent as it gives a good overview of the topic and already has all of the major aspects of the phenomenon covered. However, the article is still underdeveloped in my opinion. To further develop the article, the lead section should be rewritten to be more concise and easy to understand and include references to the body of the article. Missing gaps in context should be filled in and the writing should be changed to include less jargon. Citations should be added to at least every paragraph. The history section should be expanded to include more recent developments.