Docs: Distinguish examples in rules under Stylistic Issues part 5

[scriptdaemon]

Another straight-forward batch.

@pedrottimark Let me know if anything catches your eye.

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[mention-bot]

By analyzing the blame information on this pull request, we identified @alberto, @IanVS and @pedrottimark to be potential reviewers

[pedrottimark]

Yes, these lines at the end confused me when I first read about this rule.

[pedrottimark]

@scriptdaemon Thank you so much for working steadily through the second half of rules!

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[scriptdaemon]

@pedrottimark Everything (except one concern that we should discuss) has been addressed up until this point.

[pedrottimark]

s/can makes/can make/

[pedrottimark]

From the “View the whole file” step: 2 changes for grammatical agreement and 1 phrase deletion

[eslintbot]

LGTM

[scriptdaemon]

@pedrottimark Done. Thanks for being patient with my numerous oversights. 😀

[pedrottimark]

@scriptdaemon Thank you! It’s going well from my point of view 😀

Until we will write up a doc about docs, here is a principle to explain some of my comments:

• introduction section explains what is the software quality goal, why or to whom it matters.
• Rule Details and Options explains how to use the rule to achieve the goal.

In some rule docs, introduction leans forward into how and Rule Details leans backward into why. Here are two items in my mental check list:

• Make sure an answer is clear in context if the reader asks “why is the doc telling me this?”
• Reorganize fuzzy repetitions which could cause readers to ask “is the doc repeating the same thing or explaining something else?”