Isn't archwiki one of the most comprehended wikis for Linux distros out there? If anything, the arch-wiki (to me) has often too many answers for the same problem than the other way around.
I switched like ten years ago because I wanted to learn the details, but in all honesty I still feel like I barely understand anything. Not sure how normal this is, maybe I'm unusually dumb, but I feel like what I've really learned is how to troubleshoot and solve issues by reading documentation and tinkering, rather than understanding what I'm actually doing. I've had a stable system for years but I kind of feel like if a typical arch forum poster looked my system configuration for five minutes they'd be like wtf are you doing.
It is most comprehended, but for newbie it is too comprehensive. Its overwhelming, I tried to troubleshoot why I boot to black screen even the installation said its successful and there's no error. I saw solutions that want me edit grub, edit xorg ... and some other file that I never understand.
I understand the wiki is very good and very important, its just not newbie friendly.
The Arch wiki is one of the most impressive documentation resources I've seen and I've only [needed to] scrape the surface so far. Almost every minor unexpected issue I ran into along the way had a detailed solution and the only issue I haven't been able to resolve is getting all the buttons on my mouse to work...but did find out it's Logitech's weird receiver codes that are the issue and they don't release drivers for Linux.