[pylint] Improve phrasing (PLC0208) (#24033)

Since I already put a lot of thought into the grammar and style, at
least we can benefit from those changes.

Preemptive response:
I use this linter and follow its advice because I'm not an expert
programmer. If you were to give me two similar Python functions, I would
probably not be able to say which function was better.

On the other hand, I have exceptional training and experience as an
editor and a writer. I can say whether changing one word in a draft does
or does not affect the grammar, the style, the voice, or more than one.

I'm gifting to Astral the benefit of my professional knowledge by
editing this text. I will not, however, attempt to explain how to write
gooder and more clearer and conciser itself, which required thousands of
hours to learn, in this Pull Request.

... or in future Pull Requests, if I were to choose to gift my knowledge
again.

<!--
Thank you for contributing to Ruff/ty! To help us out with reviewing,
please consider the following:

- Does this pull request include a summary of the change? (See below.)
- Does this pull request include a descriptive title? (Please prefix
with `[ty]` for ty pull
  requests.)
- Does this pull request include references to any relevant issues?
-->

## Summary

<!-- What's the purpose of the change? What does it do, and why? -->

## Test Plan

<!-- How was it tested? -->

Author: hunterhogan

crates/ruff_linter/src/rules/pylint/rules/iteration_over_set.rs

@@ -9,12 +9,11 @@ use crate::checkers::ast::Checker;
 use crate::{AlwaysFixableViolation, Edit, Fix};
 
 /// ## What it does
-/// Checks for iteration over a `set` literal where each element in the set is
-/// itself a literal value.
+/// Checks for iteration over a `set` literal in which each element is a literal.
 ///
 /// ## Why is this bad?
 /// Iterating over a `set` is less efficient than iterating over a sequence
-/// type, like `list` or `tuple`.
+/// type, such as `list` or `tuple`.
 ///
 /// ## Example
 /// ```python