As fas as I see it, one way to known if certain scientific article is important or relevant, is to see how much cited it is .. For example, let's take Karl Schwarzschild
He's known better known for an article called:
Uber das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes nach der Einstein'schen Theorie
He published this article in 1916 and from this paper, concepts like Schwarzschild Black Hole, Schwarzschild Metric, Schwarzschild Radius, Schwarzschild Coordinates were originated
So, all of these topics are in wikipedia and one should expect this article to be highly cited, and it is, according to google scholar it has 1331 citations, so it is an important or relevant paper
Schwarzschild publised other topics, like this article:
On the deviations from the law of reciprocity for bromide of silver gelatine
In this article originated the concept of Schwarzschild's Law, one might think that that scientific concept is not as important as a Schwarzschild Black Hole, so, if you see how much cited it is, according to google scholar, it only has 62 citations
From here, we can do a conjecture, the more cited a research paper it is, the more relevant or important the scientific work it is, and if a Scientific Work is important, it is going to be possible to find that topic on places like wikipedia.
My problem comes with certain topics that sometimes I find, for example this one: Fubini–Study Metric. Since it has its own article on Wikipedia, one should expect that the paper where Eduard Study introduce this concept to be highly cited, but when you see where it was originated:
Kürzeste Wege im komplexen Gebiet
published in 1905, you only find that according to google scholar, it only has 14 citations ... For a topic with a wikipedia article almost as big as the one of Schwarzschild Radius, this doesn't make any sense to me ... What's going on? Google Scholar is not giving me the corerct number of citations? Does it really has only those citations?, Does the concept was not originated on that article (Wikipedia says it was)?