Improve documents on reviewing and approving a kata

[XRFXLP]

The article under concern: https://docs.codewars.com/curation/kata and kata approval section

Assumption: The quality of katas depends quite significantly on the approval process, so the necessary norms and standards should be clear and precise.

---

The current state of the document on this topic is vague, imprecise, and redundant which makes it easy to miss the important points. There is no sharp distinction on roles of approvers and reviewers (which should be), an approver can be a reviewer but the responsibility in being an approver is more than a reviewer.

(A reviewer (if it is defined by one of who solves a kata) can choose to not check anything and drop "Very satisfied", which is not a big problem)

---

At least these points should be in documentations and the approver should take care of them:

1. Check for the duplicate: one should not assume that the kata is not duplicate just because no one has raised an issue on it, one must ensure and ask in relevant discord chatroom for the same.
2. Check the discourse for unfixed issue/potential issues: It is not uncommon that authors in the rush of making their kata out of beta resolve issues because they think it is not an issue, or sometimes some users resolve issues based on downvotes, sometimes there are legit doubts about duplicacy, but the reviewer is not sure about it and it is often neglected by approvers [1] [2]

More generally, if kata is "Awaiting Approval state" that does not mean that the job of the approver is just to approve the kata without reviewing it responsibly.

[Blind4Basics]

if a rework is done on this, this one needs a clarification too: https://docs.codewars.com/curation/guidelines/kata/

Approvers should keep responsibility for all issues in the kata they approved. You should actively maintain all problems which slipped through your review and ended up in an approved kata: fix issues, consider suggestions, answer questions.

Even if that's true for "abandonned kata", this strongly suggests that the author has no responsibility at all in the process, which doesn't feel right at all. Translators' responsibility should be involved as well (especially since they often are the only contributor who actually can modify some languages).