Docs readability improvements

[ncordon]

Some typos and grammar corrections. This includes changes for the gRPC usage example which is outdated #227

---

This change is 

[dennwc]

Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ncordon)

---

using-babelfish/grpc-usage-example.md, line 62 at r1 (raw file):

The code in the previous section returned a `ParseResponse` object that will have the format of the [ParseResponse](babelfish-protocol.md#ParseResponse) as seen on the [server protocol](babelfish-protocol.md) page. You should check the `status` \(`Status` in the case of Go, since public members start with uppercase\); only a value of `protocol.Status.OK` will indicate success.

The most important member of the `ParseResponse` object is undoubtedly `uast` \(`UAST` in Go\). This will contain a `Node` object with the [structure detailed in the previous page](babelfish-protocol.md#Nodes). This first node returned would be the root node of the UAST, and you typically would iterate over the children node \(contained in the aptly named `children` field\) typically using [a visitor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visitor_pattern) and reading the `token`s and `role`s in the tree to do your tool.

Should be either "children nodes" or "node's children"

[dennwc]

Please rebase instead of merging master into the dev branch.

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r2, 1 of 4 files at r3, 1 of 7 files at r5, 1 of 1 files at r6.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ncordon)

[ncordon]

Please rebase instead of merging master into the dev branch.

Done!

[ncordon]

---

using-babelfish/grpc-usage-example.md, line 62 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, dennwc (Denys Smirnov) wrote…

Should be either "children nodes" or "node's children"

True, changed now

[dennwc]

LGTM, but it's still marked as draft, so I cannot really approve it :)

Reviewed 1 of 1 files at r8.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved

[bzz]

@ncordon it seems like DCO sign-off is missing from 61eaf52

[ncordon]

@ncordon it seems like DCO sign-off is missing from 61eaf52

Not the first time it has happened to me 🙈

[dennwc]

CI failure unrelated,

Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved