I've done some proofreading for HowToReportEnglish, and I'd like to
discuss improving the content.

In "Simple Steps", bullet point 1, the patchlevel is different in the
English version compared to the Japanese version. As well as changing
the patchlevel for the English version, should there be a link to a
page stating what is the current stable version?

In bullet point 4, "Write the things in (1)" doesn't make sense to me.
I think it means to refer to (2), and broke in
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/HowToReport/diff/10
and http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/HowToReportJa/diff/36
. This probably should be fixed in both the English and Japanese
versions.

According to Google Translate, there's a line in the Japanese version
talking about "Priority" and "Status" - is it saying they should be
left alone?

Should "field_mailing_list" be changed to "Preferred language", and
put at the top of bullet point 4, in both the English and Japanese
version?

There's some fields I'd like explained, even if it's just to say
"leave them alone": Assignee, Category, Target version, Start date,
Due date, Estimated time, % Done. With regards to "Start date, Due
date, Estimated time, % Done", are they actually used by Ruby
maintainers? If not, is it practical to remove them from the form?

With regards to the heading "More steps for reporting": is this
supposed to be instead of, or in addition to, "Simple Steps"? The
current wording of the title makes it sound like the latter, even
though the content makes it sound more like the former.

In bullet point 2 of "More steps for reporting", there is "Why is this
problem important?". Aren't all bugs important? Some bugs may affect
certain uses of Ruby, but not other uses, but does that make a bug
unimportant?

In the section "Make better reports", the "Repository guide" linked to
is slightly outdated. That's probably outside the scope of this
discussion however.

"Don't use rvm; Prove that it's not rvm's bug." - is this still
required? Are people still submitting erroneous bug reports as a
result of problems with RVM?

In the section on general bug-writing advice, what is meant by "Write
a fact objectively"?

"Check List of IRC and ML and join them." - Is ML an abbreviation for
"Mailing List"?

If reply templates are going to be listed, can the one saying "May
Ruby be with you" be mentioned, not just the templates explaining why
a report has been rejected? Otherwise, it seems a bit negative.

Thanks,

Andrew Grimm