minor consistency updates to the writing checklist

[nsryan2]

Summary of changes

This PR makes the grammar employed in the guide consistent:

1. Add periods to the end of each check mark.
2. Make the use of quotes consistent.
3. Make the voice more consistent.
4. Capitalize where appropriate.
5. Fix the spacing in / examples.

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.

Associated Issues and PRs

• Issue: #

Associated Developers

• Dev: @

Checklist for Reviewers

Reviewers should use this link to get to the
Review Checklist before they begin their review.

[smpark7]

Good job on going through the writing checklist while reviewing the writing checklist. I have some minor comments.

[smpark7]

This example is referring to a line, not the general definition of lines. I suggest keeping the original text.

[smpark7]

On second thought, I'm not so sure.

[nsryan2]

The original was passive, but if you're thinking the example is for a specific line we could make it active by saying, "We define this line as"

[smpark7]

The phrase "... is defined as ..." is so widely used, I wonder if it's exempted from the passive voice rule.

[nsryan2]

Maybe for a line, because it's a common definition, but I think the context we could use "is defined as"
in our writing has a paper or author we could point to to make it active and not erase that information. All that being said, this example goes against the rule in line 37, so it should be changed from what I put!

[smpark7]

Maybe for a line, because it's a common definition, but I think the context we could use "is defined as"
in our writing has a paper or author we could point to to make it active and not erase that information.

Okay I see your point here.

All that being said, this example goes against the rule in line 37, so it should be changed from what I put!

Applying the rule in line 37 here seems awkward ("definition of a line" -> "line definition"). I'm okay with your original change.

[smpark7]

If any of the undergrads also want to review this PR, feel free to do so. "The more the merrier" applies for PR reviews.

[nsryan2]

Thanks for the feedback! I addressed all your comments except for the one about e.g., I wasn't sure what that one was about.

[smpark7]

I'll check in again on Friday in case anyone else wants to review this.

[smpark7]

Merging this because I see no other review activity.