In my personal view on this I would say that requiring this format is going too far. Some answers might benefit from simpler references and simple links that will not fit into this scheme.
But this is a good idea nevertheless. In some aspects at least.
A reference should be meaningful, and should be meaningful in the future. Giving the year seems most important to evaluate at glance its relevance concerning up-to-dateness. Giving the title is important to make this reference re-searchable, if a link should go blind or change otherwise. These names are less important to find that article again, especially since not all journals seem to agree on how to format titles and christian names. If a direct link is provided, then a DOI and a on top of that is of course extra service but a bit redundant.
These reservations expressed: if we adopt this model informally, that is lead by example in using this or a variant, then this might serve as an example of the format of references expected, compared to a barren and primitive hyperlink. It would also better indicate future visitors the quality level of the content that is generally well received here.
Depending on our future scope I doubt that this is even really enforceable in all cases.
Most important would be to provide a link to an accepted, reliable source, ideally via a permalink, state title, year. Preferably liberate some content, especially if locked behind a paywall, that is not found in the openly accessible abstract. Some essential quotes should be strongly encouraged.
To exercise those points most important to me on your example:
No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrate (2013):
In all participants, gastrointestinal symptoms consistently and significantly improved during reduced FODMAP intake, but significantly worsened to a similar degree when their diets included gluten or whey protein. Gluten-specific effects were observed in only 8% of participants. There were no diet-specific changes in any biomarker. During the 3-day rechallenge, participants' symptoms increased by similar levels among groups. Gluten-specific gastrointestinal effects were not reproduced. An order effect was observed.
In a placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge study, we found no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed diets low in FODMAPs. – – – –
[…] In conclusion, these consecutive double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over rechallenge studies showed no evidence of specific or dose-dependent effects of gluten in patients with NCGS placed on a low FODMAP diet. A high nocebo response was found regardless of known background dietary triggers being controlled and reproducibility of symptom induction to a specific protein was poor. These data suggest that NCGS, as currently defined, might not be a discrete entity or that this entity might be confounded by FODMAP restriction, and that, at least in this highly selected cohort, gluten might be not be a specific trigger of functional gut symptoms once dietary FODMAPs are reduced.