People that pick arch first, should probably pick manjaro first if they are not comfortable with arch or if they don't read the wiki articles thoroughly.

Imo arch is not supposed to be veterans only (see gentoo or lfs), but it's also not supposed to be for people that say pop OS is hard.
The Linux disto scene is open for a reason, if you don't like one disto, pick another one.

I actually like the structure of the wiki, including the installation guide. The first time I installed arch on my system, I almost broke it, and that was horrifying at the same time as it was an incredible learning experience. The wiki is actually built in a way that forces people to pay attention to what you are reading vs skimming through the text (that people with incredibly short attention span are doing more and more).

So, should we make the arch installation guide better?

> Immediately assumes you have a system with gpg installed, or know how to install it and use it, but doesn't mention torrents will verify this for you (I think?)

So here you are saying that there should be a note about torrent signature verification?

> lists USB, Disc, or PXE as options, doesn't indicate that USB is typical

"typical" is relative in time, so is "common", and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this.

> doesn't explain why UEFI might be prefered / better if on newer hardware/living along side Windows

This is an installation guide, so as not to make the guide bigger than it is and with more tangents. If one needs more info on uefi or legacy, one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources.

> Sort of implies `ip link` enables the network interface

I'm sorry, it does not:

> Ensure your network interface is listed and enabled

A few lines down:

> Connect to the network: (...) Wi-Fi—authenticate to the wireless network using iwcl.

> doesn't include any information about making Arch live along side other OS's

Again, this is an installation guide for installing arch on a machine. If people want to install arch on a machine with another OS, then look on the first line:

> For alternative means of installation, see Category:Installation process (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Category:Installation_proce...).

Which includes a link to the following article: https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows

> Also doesn't recommend users do a backup first, if they're using a disk with data on it

Agree, this should probably be added in.

> it's probably worth saying systemd-boot and grub are the most common two options

Echoing my points above:

> "typical" is relative in time, so is "common" and I don't think an impartial installation guide should include this.

> If one needs more info (...), one should search about it and learn from dedicated sources.

-

> doesn't clarify that still aren't enough to have a graphical environment

This is going to sound harsh but, imo a graphical environment is not an essential package.

> On that note, the https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Dual_boot_with_Windows page isn't even linked in the installation guide.

It is, just not directly. You'll have to go to the link in the first line, which includes way more different installation variants other than windows or mac. Imo, arch should not cater for mac, or Windows or any other user. The links are there, you just need to read and click them.

For anything arch, you really need to sit down and read the articles carefully, no skimming allowed. Will it take hours or days to fully install arch for the first time if you have to sit down and read carefully?

Probably yes, but you'll leave knowing a lot more than you knew when you started.