"if arguments count" -> "if the arguments count"
"allows to easily" -> "allows us to easily"
"seen in the logging example:" -> "seen in the logging example,"
rephrasing rest of above sentence for readability
According to the MDN precedence-table you've linked some precedence numbers are incorrect. Having a quick look at different language versions (French and Russian) this error may has to be corrected at every version.
"`import` allows to import functionality.." -> "`import` allows the import of functionality..."
"relative the current file" -> "relative to the current file,"
Several punctuation changes, yielding:
"1. We use the browser [fetch](info:fetch) method to download from a remote URL. It allows us to supply authorization and other headers if needed -- here GitHub requires `User-Agent`.
2. The fetch result is parsed as JSON. That's again a `fetch`-specific method.
3. We should get the next page URL from the `Link` header of the response. It has a special format, so we use a regexp for that. The next page URL may look like `https://api.github.com/repositories/93253246/commits?page=2`. It's generated by GitHub itself.
4. Then we yield all commits received, and when they finish, the next `while(url)` iteration will trigger, making one more request."
"yield is a two-way road" -> "yield is a two-way street"
"Two way street" is by far the more common and accepted way to say this. If you look up "two-way road" you will typically be redirected to "two-way street".
Small punctuation change.
Separately, I didn't change anything on this today, but note that line 34 above:
"So to summarize: the executor runs automatically and attempts to perform a job. When it is finished with the attempt it calls `resolve` if it was successful or `reject` if there was an error."
was, before it was changed recently, pretty much the same as line 82 above:
"To summarize, the executor should perform a job (usually something that takes time) and then call `resolve` or `reject` to change the state of the corresponding promise object."
So maybe some revision there is in order -- to not have both, or to change one or both. Not familiar enough with the article at this point to make the revision.
