Google has a "readability" restriction for reviewers/authors on CL (changelists, I guess like a pull request). You need a reviewer with readability in a given language to approve your CL before it can land. When I first started, to get readability involved putting together a good archetypal CL in the language, showing good knowledge of the language, lots of tests, good documentation, etc. and then it would go into to a readability queue, get reviewed, and you'd get your readability capability.
Go was different in that they had introduced an incremental readability process. Instead of one CL, you had to do many, each reviewed by different people, and over time after doing a whole bunch of CLs you could get readability. This is the process that Google eventually adopted for all languages, but they started with Go.
What I found was the Go reviewers were a) exceptionally pedantic [even by Google standards] but, worse, b) very contradictory. One would chastize me for using channels where they were unnecessary, so I'd remove their use and just use simple functions but then a later reviewer would scorn me for not using channels in the same code. It became a painful game of tennis. And the whole thing had a feeling of ideology over practicality.