Further revise PEP 1 CI wording based on reviewer suggestions

Co-authored-by: Adam Turner <9087854+AA-Turner@users.noreply.github.com>

Author: CAM-Gerlach

pep-0001.txt

@@ -205,8 +205,9 @@ The standard PEP workflow is:
   * The title accurately describes the content.
   * The PEP's language (spelling, grammar, sentence structure, etc.)
     and code style (examples should match :pep:`7` & :pep:`8`) should be
-    correct and conformant.  The PEP will be checked for reStructuredText
-    formatting by the repo's CIs, and will not be approved until this passes.
+    correct and conformant.  The PEP text will be automatically checked for 
+    correct reStructuredText formatting when the pull request is submitted. 
+    PEPs with invalid reST markup will not be approved.
 
   Editors are generally quite lenient about this initial review,
   expecting that problems will be corrected by the reviewing process.
@@ -718,7 +719,7 @@ For each new PEP that comes in an editor does the following:
 * Skim the PEP for obvious defects in language (spelling, grammar,
   sentence structure, etc.), and code style (examples should conform to
   :pep:`7` & :pep:`8`).  Editors may correct problems themselves, but are
-  not required to do so (reStructuredText syntax is checked by the repo's CIs).
+  not required to do so (reStructuredText syntax is checked by the repo's CI).
 
 * If a project is portrayed as benefiting from or supporting the PEP, make sure
   there is some direct indication from the project included to make the support