Apply suggestions from epage

Co-authored-by: Ed Page <eopage@gmail.com>

Author: Urgau

posts/2024-05-06-check-cfg.md

@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ This is another step to our commitment to provide user-focused tooling and we ar
 
 ## A look at the feature 
 
-Every time a Cargo feature is declared that feature is transformed into a config that is passed to `rustc` (the Rust compiler) so it can verify with its [well known cfgs](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/check-cfg.html#well-known-names-and-values) if any of the `#[cfg]`, `#![cfg_attr]` and `cfg!` have unexpected configs and report a warning with the `unexpected_cfgs` lint.
+Every time a Cargo feature is declared that feature is transformed into a config that is passed to `rustc` (the Rust compiler) so it can verify with it along with [well known cfgs](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/rustc/check-cfg.html#well-known-names-and-values) if any of the `#[cfg]`, `#![cfg_attr]` and `cfg!` have unexpected configs and report a warning with the `unexpected_cfgs` lint.
 
 *`Cargo.toml`*:
 
@@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ fn main() {
 }
 ```
 
-> Each `cargo::rustc-cfg` must always have a accompanying **unconditional** `cargo::rustc-check-cfg` directive otherwise you risk having warnings like this: `unexpected cfg condition name: has_foo`.
+> Each `cargo::rustc-cfg` should have an accompanying **unconditional** `cargo::rustc-check-cfg` directive to avoid warnings like this: `unexpected cfg condition name: has_foo`.
 
 ### Equivalence table
 
@@ -100,11 +100,11 @@ More details can be found in the [`rustc` book](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightl
 
 ### Can it be disabled?
 
-The feature is **always on** and _cannot_ be disabled from Cargo, but like any other lints it can be controlled: `#![warn(unexpected_cfgs)]`.
+For Cargo users, the feature is **always on** and _cannot_ be disabled, but like any other lints it can be controlled: `#![warn(unexpected_cfgs)]`.
 
 ### Does the lint affect dependencies?
 
-No, the lint only affects local packages; only those will report the lint.
+No, like most lints, `unexpected_cfgs` will only be reported for local packages thanks to [cap-lints](https://doc.rust-lang.org/rustc/lints/levels.html#capping-lints).
 
 ### How does it interact with the `RUSTFLAGS` env?