diff --git a/CppCoreGuidelines.md b/CppCoreGuidelines.md
index 4b14ebf..c0f43d6 100644
--- a/CppCoreGuidelines.md
+++ b/CppCoreGuidelines.md
@@ -4923,7 +4923,7 @@ See [this in the Discussion section](#Sd-dtor).
 
 ##### Example, bad
 
-    struct Base {  // BAD: no virtual destructor
+    struct Base {  // BAD: implicitly has a public nonvirtual destructor
         virtual void f();
     };
 
@@ -4946,7 +4946,7 @@ If the interface allows destroying, it should be safe to do so.
 
 ##### Note
 
-A destructor must be nonprivate or it will prevent using the type :
+A destructor must be nonprivate or it will prevent using the type:
 
     class X {
         ~X();   // private destructor
@@ -4963,6 +4963,7 @@ A destructor must be nonprivate or it will prevent using the type :
 
 We can imagine one case where you could want a protected virtual destructor: When an object of a derived type (and only of such a type) should be allowed to destroy *another* object (not itself) through a pointer to base. We haven't seen such a case in practice, though.
 
+
 ##### Enforcement
 
 * A class with any virtual functions should have a destructor that is either public and virtual or else protected and nonvirtual.