The test case descriptions for leap do not appear to make grammatical sense. A previous PR was made to change the description on one of the test cases, but the other test cases look to use “in” instead of “is” and I can’t seem to wrap my head around why.
I’ve created a PR to improve the consistency of the wording across the test cases.
I agree that the ins are misplaced. However, would fixing this not lead to hundreds of thousands of test suites being rerun?
Not once Allow skipping requeueing head test runs by ErikSchierboom · Pull Request #3607 · exercism/website · GitHub and Add a check for testable files by iHiD · Pull Request #5709 · exercism/website · GitHub are merged 
Thank you for caring about this.
Some of those changes are clear improvements in my opinion.
But others might guide the students too much into the right direction, for example:
- "description": "year divisible by 4, not divisible by 100 in leap year",
+ "description": "A year divisible by 4 and not divisible by 100 is a leap year",```
I think the “and” is too much of a “nudge” towards the popular one-liner that uses a logical-AND and logical-OR operator. But that might just be a minority opinion.
For the tracks with generated tests, changing then then syncing would update the test function names in many cases, IIUC
Yeah, but they can be merged with the new [no important files changed] flag that those PRs introduce.