Fix typo

eeps/eep-0072.md

@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ go() ->
 ```
 
 While this approach is consistent with atom usage in the language, for reserved
-words, this makes the record syntax *feel* inconsistent if you have a need for
+words and capitalized atoms, this makes the record syntax *feel* inconsistent if you have a need for
 naming a record with a reserved word (or term with a capital first letter). In
 this case, it almost guarantees a user won't use a record named 'if',
 'receive', 'fun', etc even though there may very well be a valid use case for
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ Implementation
 
 To update the syntax for using records, we can safely augment the parser to
 change its already existing record handling of `'#' atom '{' ... '}'` and `'#' atom '.' atom` into `'#' record_name '{' ... '}'` and `'#' record_name '.' atom`, and define
-`record_name` to be `atom`, `var`, or `reserver_word`.
+`record_name` to be `atom`, `var`, or `reserved_word`.
 
 To update the record definition syntax, we can simply add a few new
 modifications to the `attribute` Nonterminal to allow `'#' record_name` as name for the `record` attribute, instead of `atom` as for generic attributes.
@@ -222,6 +222,7 @@ should try to hide it. These are remaining concerns and inconsistencies:
    feel that the symmetry between the usage and the definition would likely
    become the default/preferred way, and that the original syntax remain for
    backwards compatibility.
+3. Another 
 
 Reference Implementation
 ========================