Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Tim Bannister <tim@scalefactory.com>
Co-authored-by: Qiming Teng <tengqm@outlook.com>

content/en/blog/_posts/2022-TBD-storage-capacity-GA/index.md

@@ -7,9 +7,7 @@ slug: storage-capacity-ga
 
  **Authors:** Patrick Ohly (Intel)
 
-With ["storage capacity tracking"](/docs/concepts/storage/storage-capacity/)
-promoted to GA in Kubernetes 1.24, support for local storage in Kubernetes has
-reached its next milestone.
+The v1.24 release of Kubernetes brings _storage capacity tracking_ as a generally available feature.
 
 ## Problems we are solving
 
@@ -21,7 +19,7 @@ for a Pod when that Pod has volumes that still need to be provisioned.
 
 Without this information, a Pod may get stuck without ever being scheduled onto
 a suitable nodes because kube-scheduler has to choose blindly and always ends
-up picking a node for which the volume then cannot be provisioned because the
+up picking a node for which the volume cannot be provisioned because the
 CSI driver does not have sufficient storage left.
 
 Because CSI drivers publish storage capacity information that gets used at a
@@ -38,7 +36,7 @@ stuck without it.
 
 ## Problems we are *not* solving
 
-Recovery from a failed volume provisioning attempt has one known gap: if a Pod
+Recovery from a failed volume provisioning attempt has one known limitation: if a Pod
 uses two volumes and only one of them could be provisioned, then all future
 scheduling decisions are limited by the already provisioned volume. If that
 volume is local to a node and the other volume cannot be provisioned there, the
@@ -57,7 +55,7 @@ drivers with storage capacity tracking, a prototype was developed and discussed
 in [a PR](https://github.com/kubernetes/autoscaler/pull/3887). It was meant to
 work with arbitrary CSI drivers, but that flexibility made it hard to configure
 and slowed down scale up operations: because autoscaler was unable to simulate
-volume provisioning, it only increased the cluster one node at a time, which
+volume provisioning, it only scaled the cluster by one node at a time, which
 was seen as insufficient.
 
 Therefore that PR was not merged and a different approach with tighter coupling