Yes, the article is great from a rational standpoint, but much of it fails in practice. I've definitely found providing more detail rarely helps with the situation, unless the other party is willing to receive it. In problematic conversations, the latter is often not the case.

The article doesn't address the emotional problem at all, which is likely over 50% of miscommunications I've seen at work. Things like:

Junior person talking to senior person: Senior person assuming the junior person doesn't know his stuff, and simply not processing what the junior person is saying. But if a fellow senior person uses the exact same words as the junior person, he listens. Nothing in this article will help.

Person A is unsure person B will agree with him, so speaks very defensively (e.g. repeating the same stuff over and over, even though it's clear from B's responses that B understands). As a lot of communications books have pointed out, the way out of this is to have B repeat back what A is saying and ask A if his understanding is correct. This problem is so common that I default to doing this regardless of who I'm talking to.

Person A doesn't trust person B or doesn't really like person B's ideas, and will act stupid intentionally (not too common but happens often enough to need to be aware of it).

And there are others.

Being precise is the least effective technique I've found.