No, this behavior is not ideal
The Meta discussion is for best practices. That is what it provides. It is very good, but not every question needs to be the best ever. People are allowed to ask questions that are not up to that standard—you do not always need everything that discussion suggests in order to answer such questions.
It is reasonable to suggest that a question can be improved; it is reasonable to offer the Meta as advice for doing so. Those are the appropriate uses for that Meta discussion. It is often true that a question may well receive better answers if it is improved.
But that isn’t mandatory, for homebrew-review questions or any other questions on this site. Querents are allowed to be satisfied with a question that is “good enough,” and we are allowed to provide answers that are “good enough.” It is neither imperative nor, frankly, desirable, to groom every question to perfection and make it the best it possibly can be. Very often “good enough” is a better use of everyone’s time.
Whether or not you can answer a question authoritatively is the only relevant requirement for a question. Anything and everything else is secondary to that, and “follows some Meta advice to the letter” really isn’t even secondary. A question should not be closed just because you think that it could be better—maybe it could, but it doesn’t have to be.
Moreover, comments that indicate that a question is being closed solely because it didn’t follow the Meta—with absolutely no substance specific to the particular question—are not terribly constructive or helpful. They are not up to the usual expectations we have for good and helpful comments on questions that are being or have been closed. Typically, we expect those contending a question is unclear or needs details to specify what they found unclear, or specify what details they feel are missing. A link to a Meta is a poor way to do that—the Meta doesn’t know anything about the question. The Meta is not a checklist; not every question needs everything on it. If you feel a question would be better if the querent looked at the Meta, say that—but don’t close the question just because it could be better. Close the question because it cannot be answered authoritatively in our system—and if you want to really help the querent get their question answered, tell them what specific thing from their question you think is preventing the site from answering the question. It may very well be that a specific question needs some specific details suggested by the Meta. It is not the case that every question needs every detail suggested by the Meta. So if you want to help, tell querents what it is they need. And let them be satisfied with “good enough” if they so choose, so long as it is, in fact, “good enough” for this site.
The Meta suggestions offer guidance on how to make your homebrew-review question the best question it can be. But by definition, that cannot be our requirement for such questions—not every question has to be the best question it could possibly be. There has to be room for good enough. There will not and cannot be hard and fast strict rules about what makes good enough—please don’t start another Meta discussion asking after those. That is not how the site works. Rather, if you have the close vote privilege,
It is your responsibility to evaluate a specific question on its own merits, and vote to close if it cannot be answered well and authoritatively. It is your responsibility to judge this matter yourself, based on your experience and based on the specifics of the question. This responsibility cannot be offshored to any general-topic Meta discussion. If you are unsure, hold your vote—others will be by to look in on the question. Using the vote to close in any other fashion—whether it be to establish higher standards in excess of what is necessary for an answerable question, or to mechanically enforce consistency of Meta discussions and avoid the responsibility of making an individual judgment—is an abuse of the privilege. That’s not why it was given to you and not how you should use it.
Also, just as a personal note, having developed a lot of homebrew and also developed material professionally, a lot of the suggestions in the linked Homebrew Review meta are rather unusual. Most places (whether homebrew or playtesting of for-publication material), you would usually just present the material as-is—as it would appear in a book, even if it isn’t destined for one—and want a “blind” review. Because part of what you’re looking to review is whether or not people can understand the material as they would see it if they saw it when you weren’t there to walk them through it. That’s certainly how I’ve done the vast majority of my own review—again, that includes doing so professionally, when my bosses wanted my opinion on whether or not to pursue something someone had submitted. The Meta still offers good suggestions, because I think you can help you get more out of a review, especially when not developing for publication, and I think in some cases material may well be too unclear to answer and the Meta guidance can be a solid approach for rectifying that situation. But as global requirements they are decidedly odd. And they certainly cannot be considered actual requirements to making a review possible—I assure you, they are not.
