docs: Improve clarity and correctness in array reversal explanation

chapters/arrays/reverse/index.md

@@ -9,28 +9,26 @@ in turn with its mirror counterpart:
 
 {%include example.html example="simple"%}
 
-There's an even more terse implementation which makes use of the `,` operator
+There's an even more concise implementation that uses the `,` operator
 inside the Go for loop:
 
 {%include example.html example="terse"%}
 
-Note that both of these `reverse` functions take slices, which are passed by
-value.  This is good for performance, but means we're actually modifying the
-passed in array, leading to unexpected results.  In other words, the `reverse`
+Note that both of these `reverse` functions take slices, which are passed by reference.
+This is good for performance, but means we're actually modifying the
+passed in array, this might not be the intended behavior.  In other words, the `reverse`
 method could be written like such:
 
 {%include example.html example="alternate"%}
 
 Now `reverse` doesn't return another reference to the slice, which makes it
-much more clear that it's modifying the slice in-place.  If we want to return a
-modified copy of the slice, we must do so manually:
+much more clear that it's modifying the slice in-place.  If you want to return a
+modified copy of the slice without altering the original, you need to create
+and return a new slice manually:
 
 {%include example.html example="copy"%}
 
-As you can see in the output above, the original array is untouched.
-
-Since we're not modifying the array in-place, we can also simplify our
-algorithm buy doing a more straight-forward element copy:
+This ensures the original array remains untouched.
+You can also simplify the algorithm by directly copying elements into a new slice:
 
 {%include example.html example="copy_simple"%}
-