So, in short, people should look for a panel with high Adobe RGB rating as that would indirectly imply a high sRGB rating as well. And that the Adobe RGB has a wider colour rage. Is that right? I haven't gone through the entire article yet.
I think it depends on your application, and that people shouldn't pay for more capability than they'll use.
So if you're a web designer whose target output is non-color-managed web browsers, then you'll be focused on sRGB. If your target is offset-printing for publishing, then Adobe RGB may be best. If you're a fine art photographer having the latest high-end cameras, and your target is high-end inkjet prints, then you may be interested in the ProPhoto RGB color space
But better display capability is no good if the rest of your workflow will never support that same level of quality. So, in addition to the display, you have to look at quality of your source imagery, the capability of your video card, editing software, printer, and printer driver.
And whatever color space you choose, you may need to rely on independent tests by third parties to find the true specs of candidate displays.
Right now, wide-gamut displays seem to be ahead of OS support for them. Michael Bourgoin, then Program Manager of Microsoft's Windows Experience Color & Imaging Team, described a "High Color" technology
originally slated for introduction in Windows 7, which supposedly would have solved the abnormal colors users currently experience on wide-gamut displays in non-color-managed applications. But that technology didn't make it into Windows 7, and I see no mention of anything like it in Windows 8. So expect the same problems to continue in Windows 8. But this shouldn't be a problem in your work, as long as all of the applications in your workflow are color-managed, and support your required color space.
I'm just beginning to lay the research foundation for my next laptop purchase, so I'm still trying to figure all of this out myself.