Here are our current close reasons:
As @rolfl explains here, the gist of each of these three close reasons can be roughly summarized as the opposites of:
- your code works as intended
- it is your code (real code)
- the question must have the right presentation (include the actual code).
Importantly, the linked-to answer explains that a question seeking an explanation of code (presuming it is written by the OP and not qualifying under the "other people's code" close reason) should be closed using the first close reason. Effectively, if the code requires explanation, it's not really working as intended is it?
Currently, the close reason reads as such:
Questions containing broken code or asking for advice about code not yet written are off-topic, as the code is not ready for review. After the question has been edited to contain working code, we will consider reopening it.
There are a few confusing points here.
code not written - how come this doesn't fall under the pseudo/hypothetical/stub code reason or the "include code to be reviewed" reason?
This close reason also currently seems to place an emphasis on "broken" code. Yes, if you follow the link through, we'll see that "broken" includes code that compiles and runs without exception but produces unwanted results, and we see comments such as "my code isn't broken, it just doesn't give the right result".
If questions seeking explanations fall under this umbrella (or any question which simply isn't actually seeking a review), why is there nothing in the close reason to indicate this? It's confusing to close voters and posters of closed questions alike.
And finally, is this part necessary at all:
After the question has been edited to contain working code, we will consider reopening it.
Does this mean that as long as the code works as intended, the question will be reopened? Does this mean that the other close reasons (which don't include this comment) won't be considered for reopening?