Before I disagree with one little bit of what Sheldon has written, let me say that I do agree with him completely regarding his suggestions of how the article could be edited to make it read less like a technical document and more like an encyclopedia article.
Sheldon Rampton wrote:
The real problem, though, is that the topic itself is inherently so technical in nature that no amount of rewriting will make it accessible to a general reader. An "encyclopedia" should be a collection of articles that are accessible even to readers who are not specialists. Articles of this type often can be written even about obscure topics. For example, the article on [[Chandigarh]], a city in India, is easy to understand even for someone who knows nothing else about India.
I don't think that the criterion that you are using here is going to be very helpful for us. The counter-example that I would give is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-adic_number which is accessible in 2 clicks from the home page.
The topic of "P-adic numbers" is "inherently so technical in nature that no amount of rewriting will make it accessible to a general reader."
I have taken graduate level courses in Real Analysis, Stochastic processes, etc. So I am not a "general reader". And yet, I find this particular article to be extremely challenging, even though I have a fair amount of background and interest in the topic.
I don't think anyone would argue (would they?) that [[P-adic number]] should go on wikibooks. But surely [[XFree86 logfile]] is more accessible than many hundreds of articles on mathematical or scientific concepts.
--Jimbo