In line with our policy that PEPs are historic documents, not documentation, maybe this should deep link to the part underhttps://docs.python.org/3.11/reference/compound_stmts.html#try whereexcept* is described?

Both:keyword:`except* <except_star>` and:ref:`except* <except_star>` currently link to the beginning of thetry section, where theexcept_star label is defined. For a deep link, the label should be moved down to the relevant paragraph.

Actually, the keywordappears to be linked precisely, both judging fromits position in the source on both 3.12 and 3.11, and the fact that theindex entry correctlylinks to it. But maybe a:keyword: ref doesn't?

However, the:ref: is indeed not; it would be good to move the non-try ones (that presumably don't rely on the section name for default link text, since it doesn't even mention except/else/finally) down to the appropriate passages.

I think a link to the top of the section is fine.

This should be done (if at all) in a separate PR where the summary reference to the same issue is updated as well.

I say "if at all" because this is not historically accurate - I did the work under a bpo issue. Are you going to change all references to bpo issues in the docs to the gh issues they were mapped to?

Both:keyword:`except* <except_star>` and:ref:`except* <except_star>` currently link to the beginning of thetry section, where theexcept_star label is defined. For a deep link, the label should be moved down to the relevant paragraph.

Could we be consistent about PEP numbers in Feature section titles? Right now the type hint PEP sections are in the formPEP NNN: <Title>, this section and the one below is in the form<Title> (PEP NNN), and the two above it don't mention the PEP number at all in the title.

IMO, it would seem to make sense to either elide the PEP numbers in the New Features section titles (as I do for the section below in#95914 , since they don't add much value for most users and are already mentioned/linked in the section body and Summary), or consistently use them with the same format between these two sections (I can take care of the others in my separate PRs, but it would be nice to be consistent here).

Actually, the keywordappears to be linked precisely, both judging fromits position in the source on both 3.12 and 3.11, and the fact that theindex entry correctlylinks to it. But maybe a:keyword: ref doesn't?

However, the:ref: is indeed not; it would be good to move the non-try ones (that presumably don't rely on the section name for default link text, since it doesn't even mention except/else/finally) down to the appropriate passages.

Could we make these changes in#95915 instead, since that PR is closer to the scope of the change (copyediting existing entries vs. adding a specific new one), and it will cause a significant merge conflict for whichever PR gets merged second otherwise?

ok, I'll remove it and you can put it there.