What Defines a "Good Technical Article"?

Introduction

I've been posting quite a few articles lately, and sometimes I find myself wondering:
"What exactly is a 'good technical article'?"
In this post, I'd like to explore that question.

A Good Technical Article Is One That Generates Questions

I believe that a good technical article is one that generates questions for the reader.
By "questions," I mean two things: "prompting self-reflection" and "considering practical applications."
Self-reflection means thinking about whether your current approach is correct or if there's a better way.
Reading a technical article and questioning your current methods or mindset to seek room for improvement is essential for growth as an engineer.
Considering practical applications refers to moving beyond understanding the basics of a technology through the article and thinking for yourself about how to use it more effectively.
Even if you learn the basic usage of a technology from an article, it's up to the reader to figure out how to apply it to solve actual problems.
A good technical article encourages such active thinking in the reader.
From the above, I consider an article that doesn't just end with itself—one that generates questions—to be a good article.
It's important not only to accept the content of the article as it is but also to use it as a starting point for your own thinking.

A Frequently Read Article ≠ A Good Technical Article

Frequently read articles are "useful" articles.
Many people probably read them because they provide specific solutions to particular problems or offer easy-to-understand explanations.
While such articles are useful for resolving doubts, they don't necessarily encourage the kind of developmental thinking that starts from the article itself.
Of course, many frequently read articles are highly beneficial.
They are simply different from what I consider a "good technical article" here; just because they fall outside the scope of this definition doesn't mean they lack value.
I've included this section simply to clarify that they differ from the specific requirements of a good technical article as defined this time.

Conditions for Becoming a Good Technical Article

The conditions for becoming a good technical article are as follows:

• Being primary information
• Being written by a famous person

Primary information itself serves as a standard for information. Since primary information attempts to describe only facts, it encourages the reader to think about what they would do. Questions are more easily generated from facts.
For example, imagine an article about a new feature in a programming language. If that article doesn't just explain the specifications and usage by quoting from documentation, but also specifically demonstrates what was learned from actually using the feature and what became possible because of it, then it can be called primary information. Readers gain an opportunity to think about how they can utilize that feature themselves through that article.
On the other hand, even if it's neatly summarized, secondary information and beyond include the writer's subjectivity, so that understanding or interpretation enters the article, making it harder to generate questions. Tutorials digest documentation to make it easier for beginners to understand, but they rarely result in content that creates questions for the reader. When the writer's subjectivity is included, that subjectivity lingers in the reader's mind, making it harder to prompt them to think about what they would do. In this way, a good technical article creates a space for the reader to think.
Let's also look at the other condition for becoming a good technical article: an article written by a famous person. I can't go as far as to say that an article written by a famous person will 100% become a good technical article, but it becomes a good technical article if it meets certain conditions. That condition is that the article must be related to the field in which the person became famous.
Articles written by famous people are read thoroughly. Readers read them with a sense of expectation that there might be something to learn. Consequently, they read while thinking about the intentions behind the content and the lines. Then,
they think about things they couldn't quite grasp or what they would do themselves. This is nothing other than "an article that generates questions = a good technical article."

Summary So Far

To summarize what has been discussed so far, the subject matter or the person behind the article is more important than the text itself.
If your goal is to write a good technical article, it is more important to learn the skills of creation than the skills of writing.
Without something substantial to offer, you cannot put meaningful content into words, nor can you establish a reputation.

What Should I Do if I am Neither Famous nor Have Anything to Provide?

What should someone like me, who is neither famous nor possesses anything that could be considered primary information, do?
As a first option, if you belong to an organization, I believe it is best to write about the work you have done, including the background and context.
Companies exist precisely because they generate profit. By writing about activities aimed at generating profit—whether direct or indirect—you can produce an effect similar to an article written by a famous person. Everyone is an expert in the pursuit of profit.
For example, if you can specifically describe the technical challenges faced in a project you were involved in, how you solved them, and what role you played, it will serve as valuable information for the reader.
Such articles should generate high-quality questions that prompt the reader to think, "What would I do?"
Alternatively, you can strive to hone your own skills and leave behind achievements such as apps, libraries, or methodologies to become better known. Enhancing the substance of what you can provide comes before worrying about what to write or how to write it.
In technical writing, a good creator is more likely to produce a good technical article than a good writer.
By developing open-source software or libraries, or by proposing your own methodologies, you can become a source of primary information.
By improving your technical prowess through such activities and sharing the insights gained in the process, you will be able to write good technical articles.

Should You Only Write if it is a "Good Technical Article"?

Not at all.
There are connections that only come into being through the act of writing.
By writing, you can help spread good articles to others and give them the motivation to read them.
Since it can be difficult to read primary information directly, your writing can help lower that barrier.
Specifically, for beginners, reading high-level technical articles might be intimidating. Articles with clear and easy-to-understand explanations are a great help for their learning.
By writing such articles, you can share the joy of technology with a wider audience.
However, if you want to create a truly great article, it is vital to increase your value through means other than writing.
Writing is merely a baseline. To write a good technical article, a constant effort to improve your technical skills is indispensable.
Learning new technologies and applying them in practice to accumulate your own insights is key. I believe it is only with such insights that a truly good technical article can be written.

Conclusion

I have shared my thoughts on what constitutes a good technical article.
While some parts of the argument might be a bit unrefined, I am glad I was able to write it all down.
Amidst everything I wrote, the point I wanted to convey most is that who writes is more important than what is written.
That said, the act of writing itself is enjoyable, so I intend to continue—but I wrote this as a reminder to myself not to be satisfied with just the writing alone.