Make sure your description and testing corresponds to our guidelines. They need to wrap at the 70-75 character range and shouldn't reference bug IDs (that's what the Bugs field is for).
You can use backticks for any function references, which will cause them to show up as string literals.
You should also rework the first paragraph to state the problem (rather than saying it's fixed outright). Also no need to say "Per Christian's suggestion," because that's not really going to be relevant to the change. The description should focus on the why and how of what your change is doing.

This old description doesn't really meet our standards, so we shouldn't bring it over for the new one. The summary shouldn't list any data types or anything, and should instead be higher-level.
The description is also wrong. It's not amending get_close_description at all. Even if it did, it should stand alone and describe the purpose of this function.
You'll also need to include a Returns: section.
Grep around for "Returns" and "Args" for examples. We have a whole guide to writing documentation on Notion. Another mentor can link you to it.

This should also be documented using the new standards now.

Blank line before the description, or the docs won't render correctly.
When referencing other methods, do:
:py:meth:`get_close_info`

(We can skip the class name because it's in the same class. Otherwise you'd include the class, or even the full module path if in a different module.)

This is referencing the wrong path and the wrong replacement function. You should simply say ReviewRequest.get_close_description() and ReviewRequest.get_close_info().

Blank line between these. Let the warning stand alone. It's its own "paragraph."

This is a Python Standard Library module, so it should go in the first import list (excluding the __future__ group). Plain imports go before from ... import.

"warns deprecation" doesn't sound right. How "causes a deprecation warning"

Blank line between these. Block-creating statements (like with or if/else) should be separated from other statements.

This is missing a docstring.
It also should test the entirety of the feature, not just the timestamp.

You can use the dictionary item references directly below instead of pulling out into variables.

These can all be put into the dictionary below without pulling them out into variables first.

Same here.

Can you call this closed_date_raw and closed_date?
I also don't tihnk you want to use |date:"N d, Y, g:i a". We should be consistent with all existing date uses (which are just using |date here).

We also write docstrings in the imperitive mood. In this case it would be "Return" not "Returns".

A couple of style nits here
Note that we use self.assertEqual(x, y) over self.assertTrue(x == y) becuase the former will generate better error message (e.g., showing where lists or dicts differ) instead of just saying False is not True.

Instead of this, we can format as:

A dictionary with the following keys:

``'close_description'`` (:py:class:`unicode`):
    description of close_description

``'is_rich_text'`` (:py:class:`bool`):
    description of is_rich_text

``'timestamp'`` (:py:class:`datetime.datetime`):
    description of timestamp


This will cause it to be rendered as a definition list sort of like how we render our Args, etc. in the docs.

Can you format this as:

return {
    'key': value,
    # ...   
}

self.assertEqual(len(w), 1)

If len(w) == 1, then w[-1] is w[0]. We should just pull out w[0].

self.assertIn('deprecated', six.text_type(w[0].message)))
We use six.text_type (from django.utils import six) becuase in Python 2, the text type is unicode (str represents binary data) and in Python 3 the text type is str (and bytes represents binary data).

""" on next line.

self.assertIn

self.assertLess

self.assertIn

self.assertEqual

self.assertIn

One more nit. Pending the following issue being fixed, this change looks good to me!

Undo this.

Can you add a unit test here that creates a review request, closes it, then adds a new review with a later timestamp? The test should verify that the timestamp returned by get_close_info is that of the close operation and not the review.

We don't need to define lasteupdatedraw and lastupdated in here anymore.

This looks good to me! Thanks Theo!

Ship It!

Two minor nits and then I'm happy with it!

Can we reformat this as a list, à la:

A 2-tuple of:

* The close description (:py:class:`unicode`).
* Whether or not the close description is rich text (:py:class:`bool`).

These don't need to be in the with block.

Ship It!