Apply suggestions from code review

Co-authored-by: Hugo van Kemenade <1324225+hugovk@users.noreply.github.com>

Author: woodruffw

peps/pep-0792.rst

@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ Discussions-To: Pending
 Status: Draft
 Type: Standards Track
 Topic: Packaging
-Created: 08-Apr-2025
+Created: 21-May-2025
 Post-History: `03-Feb-2025 <https://discuss.python.org/t/79356/>`__,
 
 Abstract
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ determining whether a project is maintained or otherwise suitable for consumptio
 Python packaging has at least three different mechanisms for communicating
 the "status" of a project:
 
-1. Distribution packages can include *trove classifiers* in their metadata, as
+1. Distribution packages can include *Trove classifiers* in their metadata, as
    originally specified in :pep:`301`. The list of supported classifiers is
    `maintained by the PyPA <https://github.com/pypa/trove-classifiers>`_,
    and includes the ``Development Status`` hierarchy. For example, a
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ the "status" of a project:
    Additionally, indices like PyPI will hide yanked distributions by default
    and will render them with a notice when the user navigates directly to them.
 
-   Yanking is machine-readable like trove classifiers, but is single-purpose
+   Yanking is machine-readable like Trove classifiers, but is single-purpose
    rather than general-purpose: users can specify a free-text reason for
    yanking a given distribution package, but the semantics of yanking are
    fixed, and no reliable inference of project status can be made by a machine
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ Using "reserved" keys
 ---------------------
 
 One alternative to this PEP is to avoid standardizing project status
-markers directly, but instead leverage existing mechanisms within the standards
+markers directly, but instead use existing mechanisms within the standards
 to communicate them in a non-standard fashion.
 
 For example, the `JSON simple index <packaging:simple-repository-api-json>`_