address review: apply rest of suggestions

Author: skirpichev

peps/pep-0812.rst

@@ -202,10 +202,10 @@ Simplicity is a goal, but most importantly for the end user, not implementers
 of the complex arithmetic.
 
 
-Upcoming C2y standard abandons [8]_ the imaginary type
-------------------------------------------------------
+Upcoming C2y standard abandons the imaginary type
+-------------------------------------------------
 
-That might be viewed as a failure of the new approach: no compiler from major
+That [8]_ might be viewed as a failure of the new approach: no compiler from major
 players had a correct implementation of the C99 Annex G.
 
 On the other hand, this might be also viewed as an indication of poor adoption of
@@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ from Python objects and do arithmetic with some external library (like the GNU
 GSL), then import back.
 
 
-It's Not Magic
+It's not Magic
 ==============
 
 New arithmetic rules correct some more examples, where using known analytic
@@ -547,9 +547,9 @@ explain then a dedicated concept of imaginary numbers as a subtype of complex.
 Open Issues
 ===========
 
-The PEP doesn't expose new subtype as a builtin, say ``imaginary``, but maybe
+The PEP doesn't expose a new subtype as a builtin, say ``imaginary``, but maybe
 we should?  This looks redundant, as all imaginary values could be obtained by
-scaling imaginary unit, i.e. ``imaginary(x) == float(x)*1j``.
+scaling the imaginary unit, i.e. ``imaginary(x) == float(x)*1j``.
 
 
 Acknowledgements