I'm not in agreement with the code review example. Both approaches seem fine, although some variable renaming might be helpful; particularly of `f` (what does it do?). I find the `for` example slightly easier to read than the list comprehension. But, to me, it's a stylistic choice.

The corporate communication example is better. The feedback is correct, and it improves the language. Had I written the original, my take-aways from the review would be: it's better as suggested, the reviewer is correct, and I shouldn't do it again. That is the reviewer's (and author's) purpose, it's constructive, and it "lands". If the receiver views this as an "... I hate you and want you to suffer" message without an argument as to why the original text was better, well, they might be in the wrong line of work.