FWIW, I don't think this article really applies to areas like maths or computer science, where the main output is theorems or algorithms that can be verified line by line. It's more about empirical science where one is trying to prove/disprove hypotheses through rigorous experimentation.
No, I don’t think so, either. In math, there are excellent papers that cover .01% of what needs to be said about the subject, and ordinary or even bad papers that say much more. Provided there are no serious logical errors, the difference is simply how important is the question being answered.
Edit: Although it may go without saying, all else being equal, a better paper is easier to read than a lesser one. But, really, content is king.
