This is sort of interesting because it's something I've gradually changed my mind about. Several times in the past, I've argued in chat that I think the first close vote should require a comment.
I don't feel that way anymore. I'm not sure if it is a matter of becoming more cynical -- or less, with regard to putting faith in the efficacy of the system. I admit the hold banners are explicit enough and often do not require a further comment.
In the case of your example, looking at the original edit, I'm trying to imagine a version which demonstrates less thought put into it. The fact that it is a simple and straightforward question is no excuse; in that case, it should be even easier to make sure it is completely clear. That the OP had a problem with English perhaps makes it an unfortunate corner case, but often people with that problem make it clear -- so maybe there is still a lesson in this for the poster. You're not clear by consensus. What are you going to do about that? Just because someone's English is poor does not mean they are stupid and cannot solve elementary communication problems, starting with, "My English is not good..."
But some people seem to approach the task thinking that they should begin by making as little effort as humanly possible, then if that doesn't get them what they want, maybe they have to try harder. Hence, we are explicitly asking them to try harder, and that is not unreasonable. Do we always need to elaborate on "unclear"? There's a whole paragraph explaining it in the "hold" bar, including the invitation to leave a comment.
I also believe a lot of people who don't answer questions sometimes have a hard time empathizing with those who do. I'm not saying they should have to answer questions if they can't or don't want to, but I think they should step back and consider that just because you get something for free does not mean it is a product of unlimited resources. If you can't be bothered to try, why should anyone else? Why should the community give you time?1 Answers are not a product of unlimited resources, and therefore, there need to be limits and standards imposed on questions. If S.E. arbitrated for money instead, I'm sure people would make an effort to be very clear about exactly what they are looking for, lest they get, "Sorry, the answer genie did answer your question as asked; if you want another, they are $5 each".
There are plenty of forums, etc., around where you can act as slovenly as you like. I think setting a higher bar results in an all round better site. Does this catch some people off guard at first? Sure, but they have the opportunity to learn from their mistakes. To do facilitate that, they need to be pointed out.
1. The objection could be made that if you don't want to answer a question you don't have to, but that doesn't mean you should vote to make it impossible for anyone else. My problem with that has to do with the broken windows theory. Allowing really low quality questions to float creates the impression that it is okay because someone who isn't so fussy will come along eventually.