The documentation sources are using semantic line breaks. Could you please reformat your PR? It will also likely help to reveal if you did some changes in the first paragraph or not. Thank you.

Reformatted with semantic line breaks,

I have moved the text introducing copr as an option from section upload your package, but have not changed it's wording or syntax

Is the "provide the source" name of a field? Shouldn't it be quoted?

It's not a field, it's a section from which user can select the source with file explorer

Type Fedora with initial upper case here

"the built step" is unclear here, and probabaly misspelled? I would use say "the New Build step" (using formatting to clarify that the phrase is something that appears verbatim in the tutorial and in COPR UI also).

This is overkill. For the purposes of sharing the specfile and srpm, using just one chroot is enough. Others may be useful for testing the specfile in various conditions, but that depends on the situation. I would rather say "select at least one fedora-rawhide chroot".

Remove duplicate sentence.

I do not like the addition of this new section. The topic is the same as in existing "Upload Your Package" section, and having two sections may be understood, perhaps just because of order of reading, as needing to follow both individually. I propose to just extend the existing section with the more detailed instructions that are added here.

I would also like to reword to existing paragraph about COPR, that you intend to keep as an introduction, to be more like "the recommened approach is to use COPR, because it not only allows distributing the specfile and SRPM, but also automatically builds the package and distributes the results".

Please use formatting around Upload to indicate it is something that can be found in COPR UI. Italics I would say.

Please use formatting around "Browse..." to indicate it is something that can be found in COPR UI.

Thank you for your contribution! This is really useful, pointing everybody to COPR for these needs is a good approach. I put some comments of varying level of importance. Nothing is a hard blocker though, so just explaining why my proposal is not a good one can sway me.

Thank you! I really appreciate the feedback.
I have hopefully, improved the text based on all of your suggestions

Thank you, it looks good now. Merged.

The policy for this repository is to grant commit access to everybody with a merged pull request, so I have added you to group package-maintainer-docs. Going forward, you can self-merge trivial fixes. Pull requests are preferred for anything substantial, so others have a way to express their views.