DOCS-664 review edits

Author: Bob Grabar

source/faq/developers.txt

@@ -171,28 +171,27 @@ storage efficiently in such situations.
   previously separate field was indexed, this eliminates an extra index,
   too.
 
-- Use small field names. This is recommended only in certain situations.
+- Use shorter field names. This is recommended only in certain situations.
 
-  Consider the following record:
+  For example, the strings ``last_name`` and ``best_score`` in this
+  record:
 
   .. code-block:: javascript
 
      { last_name : "Smith", best_score: 3.9 }
 
-  The strings ``last_name`` and ``best_score`` are stored in each
-  object's BSON. Using shorter strings would save space:
+  could be shortened to ``lname`` and ``score``, which would save 9
+  bytes per document:
 
   .. code-block:: javascript
 
      { lname : "Smith", score : 3.9 }
 
-  In this case, the shorter names would save 9 bytes per document. This
-  reduces expressiveness and is not recommended unless you have a
-  collection where this is of significant concern.
-
-  Shortening field names does not reduce index size. Field names are not
-  stored in indexes, as indexes have a predefined structure. In general
-  it is not necessary to use short field names.
+  Shortening field names reduces expressiveness and is not recommended
+  unless you have a collection where document overhead is of significant
+  concern. Also, shortening field names does not reduce index size, as
+  indexes have a predefined structure. In general it is not necessary to
+  use short field names.
 
 - Embed documents.