I believe you are right that contrast is more important than both gamut and color accuracy, but a higher gamut will make images feel more alive and give them more "pop", especially in the reds and yellows (as the article discusses).
A high contrast ratio helps prevent banding artifacts in dark shades of gray.
A high gamut does the same for color.
With a high contrast display with a low gamut (a display that can't output a very wide range of colors) you might see banding in reds or yellows even. The brain will compensate for lower gamuts but the image will look more washed out. As an example, a color photo in on newspaper is clearly less vibrant than the same image in a glossy magazine or online.
Also, color accuracy and gamut are not necessarily the same thing. The typical human eye can see far wider range of colors - a wider gamut - than is possible in any display or print technology. Displays are a compromise. sRGB is far less than the human eye can see, which is why image editors use the wider ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB gamut (color spaces) and then after editing cleverly compress down to sRGB (or for particular applications, the exact color space of a particular printer / paper combination or of a particular display).
Low-gamut means some colors are missing and compressed to colors that can be shown - so the richest red becomes an orangish-red. While inaccurate, this isn't quite the same the same thing color-shifting all colors in an image, such as the yellow-cast you might see with indoor lighting, or blue-cast with outdoor shadows. All displays introduce color-shifting inaccuracies as well. High-gamut displays have a wider color pallet and are generally tuned better at the factory.
I expect high-gamut displays will just "feel" better in the same way retina / high-res displays do.
A high contrast ratio helps prevent banding artifacts in dark shades of gray.
A high gamut does the same for color.
With a high contrast display with a low gamut (a display that can't output a very wide range of colors) you might see banding in reds or yellows even. The brain will compensate for lower gamuts but the image will look more washed out. As an example, a color photo in on newspaper is clearly less vibrant than the same image in a glossy magazine or online.
Also, color accuracy and gamut are not necessarily the same thing. The typical human eye can see far wider range of colors - a wider gamut - than is possible in any display or print technology. Displays are a compromise. sRGB is far less than the human eye can see, which is why image editors use the wider ProPhoto RGB or Adobe RGB gamut (color spaces) and then after editing cleverly compress down to sRGB (or for particular applications, the exact color space of a particular printer / paper combination or of a particular display).
Low-gamut means some colors are missing and compressed to colors that can be shown - so the richest red becomes an orangish-red. While inaccurate, this isn't quite the same the same thing color-shifting all colors in an image, such as the yellow-cast you might see with indoor lighting, or blue-cast with outdoor shadows. All displays introduce color-shifting inaccuracies as well. High-gamut displays have a wider color pallet and are generally tuned better at the factory.
I expect high-gamut displays will just "feel" better in the same way retina / high-res displays do.
[edited for clarity]