Improve clarity and conciseness in Best practices for GitHub Docs art…

[tanmay-563]

…icle

This PR improves clarity, conciseness, and flow in the "Best practices for GitHub Docs" article.

Changes include:

• Reducing repetition
• Simplifying sentence structure
• Improving readability and scannability
• Minor wording improvements for clarity

The structure and meaning remain unchanged.

Why:

Closes:

What's being changed (if available, include any code snippets, screenshots, or gifs):

Check off the following:

• A subject matter expert (SME) has reviewed the technical accuracy of the content in this PR. In most cases, the author can be the SME. Open source contributions may require an SME review from GitHub staff.
• The changes in this PR meet the docs fundamentals that are required for all content.
• All CI checks are passing and the changes look good in the review environment.

[github-actions]

How to review these changes 👓

Thank you for your contribution. To review these changes, choose one of the following options:

• Spin up a codespace
• Set up a local development environment

A Hubber will need to deploy your changes internally to review.

Table of review links

Note: Please update the URL for your staging server or codespace.

The table shows the files in the content directory that were changed in this pull request. This helps you review your changes on a staging server. Changes to the data directory are not included in this table.

Source	Review	Production	What Changed
contributing/writing-for-github-docs/best-practices-for-github-docs.md	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.20 3.19 3.18 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14	fpt ghec ghes@ 3.20 3.19 3.18 3.17 3.16 3.15 3.14

Key: fpt: Free, Pro, Team; ghec: GitHub Enterprise Cloud; ghes: GitHub Enterprise Server

🤖 This comment is automatically generated.

[Sharra-writes]

@tanmay-563 These edits aren't really an improvement. They make it longer, less colloquial (we prefer language to be more colloquial in the docs), and less active. We're not going to take these edits, sorry.