This answer will not be outdated, as it is a list of features for a major release, not a specific point release that will change every month. Compilers will refer back to this standard version for a decade or more.
This answer is not too broad, because there were only 40-odd features added, out of 100s proposed.
It is true that "list all features" is not an appropriate question when the answer would be too broad. I claim it isn't the request for a list, but rather lack of specificity in the request or broadness of the answer that is the problem.
It is easy for a "list all features" question to be too broad. It can have unbounded scope (with a moving target). The set of features can be simply too large.
It can even be too narrow, in that it might refer to a point release that will be obsolete in a month, and few tools will refer back to.
In this case, however, none of these apply.
It is useful without the links. There were 100s of features proposed for C++17: knowing which if them got into the standard, and either their name or a very brief description, is useful information. The links themselves contain the formal paper number for the feature in question (which is useful if they later go dead).
A complete comprehensive set of documentation might be better: but, like alternative stack exchange sites, the existence of another alternative is not evidence of it being off-topic. And especially one in beta.