I'm not looking for general recommendations, but specific criticism due to the recent deletion of a comment.
In a Question about the Etymology of *Cervix Why was my comment about the neck and uterus deleted?
Meanwhile a similar comment remained, elaborating on tangents from a distantly related language.
Sure, the note about English not having a proper translation for these words might be off, if it is I who misunderstands e.g. throat or neck, as an ESL at that. But how off exactly? What's your problem?
One general problem is surely that I will frequently speculate about cognates, like compare throat and Ger Trichter, which, if you look it up in wiktionary is not an established relation at all. Mentioning it is therefore too highbrow for some or too low effort, at the same time. It is topical nevertheless, but uncanny.
So many a people are downright offended if the majority opinion is challenged. Of course it's often preferable to make that a fully fledged answer, but at the same time challenged answers are often no less superficial, perhaps in an appeal to authority, or out of common ignorance. This is agreeable, if the best one can do is collect the factual evidence. But if an interpretation is offered, it seems instructive to offer a counterpoint for sake of the argument.
I did not even do that here. And if I do, then rarely with the intent to discuss, but with a hope for more material contributions. Specifically, if a word for neck is likely to be used figuratively, it's likely that the word for neck itself was derived from figurative usage and that other such words are parallel developments, which can be informed by looking at analogous developments.
For a reason, this must appear arrogant or something. One may not even be aware of it, but criticizm implicitly requests more work be done, which is agitating. I think I know. I mean, I had commented under the answer, too, that were deleted. So I think I'm not alone at fault, because I personally wanted to flag comments under my own answers just because I didn't like them and more so because I felt personally responsible to keep my answers clean.
The problem is a bit subjective, but I found the given answer too weak and wanted to stimulate a better one. Should I have made that clear, or should it be implicitly understood?
Sometimes it seems that the reaction is to wilify the difficulty of etymology with a slight of hand. So it does not seem recommendable to bring up everytime.
Besides, my writing can be unbearable. My grammar is subpar, and I can hardly ever resist the chance to make an obscure reference. Like, if cervix was from *'ker- and then some, giving head, heart, horn and more, and if that reminds me of an utterly idiomatic meme that is the heart-cutout as peep hole in dixie toilets, then I cannot not mention it, if it's the second time in a week, even if I rejected it the first time and thus don't remember what prompted that thought--that's also one reason to note it, so I wont forget it again--because it might be corresponding as much as Hals ("throat") corresponds to hole, if that is the case. Alas, I shouldn't trash the place, so much that I wont find anything back.
So, in this instance I don't really care about the missing comment. But I thought it was informative, even if the German and Polish examples were mere calques. I could have written a proper question about word-choice, if that was a concern, but I didn't really imply a question. At best I implied that it's nearly impossible to explain it(?) without difficulty in English.
So, to rephrase the question: How can I be any more specific in 512 characters?