You don't any more than you try and get literary masterpieces out of scientific papers. Wikipedia aims to provide information in a very concentrated form thus with the exception of "introduction to ..." articles wikipedia articles are going to at best look like well strung together factoids. If you look at the articles wikipedia is being compared to they are from the 50s and 60s when encyclopedias tended to argue a point of view.
NPOV and NOR and citing sources require the text to be the way it is. On top of that given a choice between being understandable and being right wikipedians tend to chose being right. This is a natural result of trying to be comprehensive while a non comprehensive work can skim over the more complex parts of liquid crystals wikipedia doesn't.
You can have a neutral article that reads better than many of ours, though. Certainly we don't want to be using all kinds of fancy literary devices - we want to just state the facts, but we can do that without ending up with a sequence of disconnect sentences. A lot of the problems come from the fact that articles are often written one sentence at a time (after the initial creation, at least) - those sentences need to be better integrated.