A recent article proposed reduced mutual information for evaluation of clustering, classification and community detection. The motivation is that the standard normalized mutual information (NMI) may give counter-intuitive answers under certain conditions and particularly when the number of clusters differs between the two divisions under consideration. The motivation makes sense. However, the examples given in the article are not accurate, and this comment discusses why. In addition, this comment also empirically demonstrates that the reduced mutual information cannot handle the difficulties of NMI and even brings more. The necessity of Kappa is also empirically validated in this comment.