--- a/tr.html	Thu Feb 20 17:05:51 2014 +0100
+++ b/tr.html	Fri Mar 07 18:31:08 2014 +0100
@@ -430,9 +430,10 @@
       <li><em class="rfc2119">should</em> document known implementation.</li>
     </ul>
     <p>Because the requirements for First Public Working Drafts are fairly
-      mechanical approval is normally fairly automatic, whereas for later stages
-      there is generally a formal review meeting to ensure the requirements have
-      been met before Director's approval is given.</p>
+      mechanical, approval is normally fairly automatic. For later stages,
+      especially transition to Candidate or Proposed Recommendation, there is
+      generally a formal review meeting to ensure the requirements have been met
+      before Director's approval is given.</p>
     <p>Note that for a First Public Working Draft there is no "previous maturity
       level".</p>
     <h4 id="doc-reviews">7.2.3 Reviews and Review Responsibilities</h4>
@@ -464,10 +465,10 @@
       considered positive evidence of wide review. Working Groups <span class="rfc2119">should</span>
       announce to other W3C Working Groups as well as the general public,
       especially those affected by this specification, a proposal to enter
-      Candidate Recommendation in e.g. approximately four weeks. By contrast a
-      generic statement in a document requesting review at any time is likely
-      not to be considered as sufficient evidence that the group has solicited
-      wide review. </p>
+      Candidate Recommendation (for example in approximately four weeks). By
+      contrast a generic statement in a document requesting review at any time
+      is likely not to be considered as sufficient evidence that the group has
+      solicited wide review. </p>
     <p>A Working Group could present evidence that wide review has been
       received, irrespective of solicitation. But it is important to note that
       receiving many detailed reviews is not necessarily the same as wide
@@ -524,9 +525,9 @@
       <dt>4. New features</dt>
     </dl>
     <h3 id="working-draft">7.3 Working Draft</h3>
-    <p>A Public Working Draft is published on the W3C's Technical Reports page
-      [TR] for review, and for simple historical reference. For all Public
-      Working Drafts a Working Group</p>
+    <p>A Public Working Draft is published on the <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR">W3C's
+        Technical Reports page</a> [TR] for review, and for simple historical
+      reference. For all Public Working Drafts a Working Group</p>
     <ul>
       <li> <em class="rfc2119">should</em> document outstanding issues, and
         parts of the document on which the Working Group does not have
@@ -592,7 +593,7 @@
     <h3 id="candidate-rec"><a name="last-call" id="last-call">7.4 Candidate
         Recommendation </a></h3>
     <p>To publish a Candidate recommendation, in addition to meeting the <a href="#transition-reqs">general
-        requirements for advancement</a> a Working Group</p>
+        requirements for advancement</a> a Working Group:</p>
     <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the specification has met all
         Working Group requirements, or explain why the requirements have changed
@@ -625,7 +626,7 @@
     <p>Possible next steps:</p>
     <ul>
       <li>Return to <a href="#hb-wd">Working Draft</a></li>
-      <li>Revised <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
+      <li>A revised <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a></li>
       <li><a href="#rec-pr">Proposed Recommendation status</a> (The expected
         next step)</li>
       <li><a href="#Note">Working Group Note</a></li>
@@ -644,7 +645,7 @@
         Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].
       Note that approval is <em>expected</em> to be fairly simple compared to
       getting approval for a transition to Candidate Recommendation.</p>
-    <p>In addition the Working Group</p>
+    <p>In addition the Working Group:</p>
     <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show that the revised specification
         meets all Working Group requirements, or explain why the requirements
@@ -678,7 +679,7 @@
           4</a> of the <a href="http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy">W3C
           Patent Policy</a> [<a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/refs.html#ref-patentpolicy">PUB33</a>].</li>
     </ul>
-    <p>a Working Group</p>
+    <p>A Working Group:</p>
     <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> show adequate <a href="#implementation-experience">implementation
           experience</a> except where an exception is approved by the Director,</li>
@@ -695,7 +696,7 @@
         Candidate Recommendation document as "at risk" without repeating the
         transition to Candidate Recommendation.</li>
     </ul>
-    <p>The Director</p>
+    <p>The Director:</p>
     <ul>
       <li><em class="rfc2119">must</em> announce the Request for publication of
         a Proposed Recommendation to the <a href="http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/organization.html#AC">Advisory
@@ -712,7 +713,7 @@
       Candidate Recommendation or Working Draft.</p>
     <ul>
     </ul>
-    <p>Possible Next Steps</p>
+    <p>Possible Next Steps:</p>
     <ul>
       <li>Return to <a href="#hb-wd">Working Draft</a></li>
       <li>Return to <a href="#last-call">Candidate Recommendation</a></li>