Let's look at answers in the supposed duplicate:
Click here in case you suspect corruption or bad sectors.
Not applicable IMO. One could argue the volume is 'corrupt' But corrupt in itself is a meaningless term. Question that was deemed duplicate is about a specific scenario, the answer in the wiki is not. Answer also treats bad sector same as 'corruption'.
For example, taking USB drive out of enclosure and thus skipping a hardware / translation layer makes sense when we're indeed dealing with bad sectors. But for someone that needs to recover data from a logical issue it's an extra hurdle that can be skipped. Or, checking health of the drive is always a good idea, but in case the cause of logical corruption is known it is relatively safe to assume no health issues.
Point is, the 'answer' treats very different issues as if it were the same. If the question is not flagged duplicate, a more specific answer is possible which could serve as wiki for partial overwrite for example. Which is a quite common issue and would thus potentially be useful for others as well.
Click here in case you suspect mechanical issues.
Not applicable IMO. The cause of the issue is known and it's not mechanical issues.
We have separate questions covering common problems with USB flash drives in greater detail:
Click here if your flash drive appears as an empty disk drive with no media inserted. Click here if your flash drive appears to be much smaller than it should. Click here if your flash drive is write-protected or read-only.
All different issues.
How does closing question as duplicate and link to supposed duplicate help anyone, I genuinely wonder. It appears as if anything that reeks of a data recovery related issue is deemed a duplicate of How do I recover lost/inaccessible data from my storage device? which IMO is nonsensical.