diff --git a/prml_errata.tex b/prml_errata.tex
index a1fa3b1..805bde7 100644
--- a/prml_errata.tex
+++ b/prml_errata.tex
@@ -1959,16 +1959,18 @@ \subsubsection*{#1}
 that would give a terribly wrong prediction very confidently.
 This is true even when we take a ``fully'' Bayesian approach as discussed in the following.
 
+\parhead{A Bayesian model that exhibits overfitting}
 Let us take a Bayesian linear regression model of Section~3.3 as an example and
 suppose that the precision~$\beta$ of the target~$t$ in the likelihood~(3.8) is very large
 whereas the precision~$\alpha$ of the parameters~$\mathbf{w}$ in the prior~(3.52) is very small
 (i.e., the conditional distribution of $t$ given $\mathbf{w}$ is narrow whereas
 the prior over $\mathbf{w}$ is broad so that the regularization is insufficient).
 Then, the posterior~$p(\mathbf{w}|\bm{\mathsf{t}})$ given the data set~$\bm{\mathsf{t}}$ is
-sharply peaked around the ML estimate~$\mathbf{w}_{\text{ML}}$ and
+sharply peaked around the maximum likelihood estimate~$\mathbf{w}_{\text{ML}}$ and
 the predictive~$p(t|\bm{\mathsf{t}})$ is also sharply peaked
 (well approximated by the likelihood conditioned on $\mathbf{w}_{\text{ML}}$)
-so that the assumed model reduces to least squares.
+so that the assumed model reduces to the least squares method,
+which is known to suffer from overfitting (see Section~1.1).
 Of course, we can extend the model by incorporating hyperpriors over $\beta$ and $\alpha$,
 thus introducing more Bayesian averaging.
 However, if the extended model is not sensible
@@ -1979,7 +1981,7 @@ \subsubsection*{#1}
 we cannot know whether the assumed model is sensible in advance
 (i.e., without any knowledge about the data).
 We can however assess whether a model is better than another
-in terms of, say, \emph{Bayesian model comparison} (Section~3.4),
+in terms of, say, \emph{Bayesian model comparison} (see Section~3.4),
 though a caveat is that we still need some (implicit) assumptions for this procedure to work;
 see the discussion around (3.73).