This question is fine. At its core, it's asking for a general summary of Magic's turn structure, specifically in visual form. Without the restriction to visual form, it would be a good question (a nice general reference thing we can point people to, even), and with the restriction it only becomes more specific.
The major arguments that have been raised are:
It's subjective, since it's asking for good or the best diagrams, and that's a subjective decision. This is an unconvincing argument since it's really not unusually subjective. All questions are implicitly asking for the best possible explanation, and we routinely use voting to sort out which one we collectively think is best. Further, the question actually provides some specific criteria for evaluation, making it even less subjective. The comments on the existing answer indeed suggest that there's some rough agreement about what would make a good answer, not people just subjectively arguing about the best possible diagram.
It's a list question, asking for a list of diagrams. This is an unconvincing argument because this really isn't the sort of fatally flawed question that label is meant for. It's simply asking for a diagram or set of diagrams which fully explain things, similar to the way a question asking for the explanation in text form would be asking for a set of paragraphs - that's not really a list. A list question, the kind we hate, is a poll, something that won't really be complete until there's a long list - like "what are the cards that combo with X?" Per this meta answer, a short way to describe list questions is "answers that have value only in aggregate", or from the help center, every answer is equally valid, or you expect more answers like your own, or there's no actual problem to be solved. That doesn't really apply here - the problem to be solved is explaining the turn structure in a clear, concise way, and while there's room for multiple answers, there's no way every possible diagram would be equally good. (Remember, every question has the issue that people can post near-duplicate answers, which will then be equally good - that doesn't make them list questions.)
A couple more arguments surfaced in the comments:
You can't prove anything about what the question invites. This argument is plainly absurd. If you read in the help center about closing questions, for example how we decide if they're too broad, it explicitly mentions things about what kinds of answers the question is asking for. This is true all over the place anywhere in the help and on meta.stackexchange.com when people discuss these things. This is a key part of how we judge questions. So no, we can't prove it, but we can discuss it and make sane decisions.
We shouldn't discuss this on meta. Again, completely absurd. If you want to discuss whether question closure is a good topic for meta, start another meta question about it, I guess, but this is what the meta.stackexchange.com FAQ say to do if you think a question has been closed in error (doing it when it's only halfway there is pretty much equivalent) and people have been doing it across the stackexchange network for years.