A relatively new user took the Meta question Why can't we get the question rate up? to heart, and posted a question about beginning boating. That question was very broad, and probably should have been put on hold (as it was) in the hope of being fixed by editing.
If someone had asked a question about how to get started "moving on snow", that would be too broad. But if someone asked a question about how to get started skiing, or snowmobiling, or snowboarding, or snowshoeing, or mushing, that would be answerable. I would be astonished if it were not.
One reason given for the questions being too broad was that where the sailing or paddleboating was to occur was not specified. Would my hypothetical skiing question be closed as too broad because the OP did not specify whether he was going to start on the bunny slope or on Mt. Everest?
If someone asked a question about how to get started ice-skating, I could answer it even if the OP hadn't a clue if he meant figure skating, speed skating, or hockey, or skating on an outdoor rink, or an indoor rink, or a lake. The answer would spread out the menu and say a bit about each item to enable the OP to decide what form of ice-skating he wanted to start with.
The same ought to be doable on the sailing question.
An expert on the topic in question (whether sailing or skiing or reading the mind of a rattlesnake) should have the imagination to put himself in the beginner's place. Always requiring tightly focused questions can reduce an interesting question to a boring question or eliminate the question completely and eliminate a new user who is genuinely asking for guidance.
My main criticism of the questions is that they were written in a See Spot Run style -- a primer question should not be written in a primer style.