GWTC3-event-review.md

@@ -2217,12 +2217,12 @@ Potentially problematic events (excluded from gwtc3 analysis): GW191109_010717,
 
 I propose following key for filling in the table (you can include brief text note after the symbol if you want to elaborate). Use 2 symbols. 1st represents how bilby posterior looks:
 * :white_check_mark: nice single peak and GR recovered [`:white_check_mark:`]
-* :ok: GR recovered but posterior looks weird (2nd peak, very broad, etc.) [:ok:]
-* :x: GR not recovered (A=0 significantly beyond 90% CI) [:x:]
+* :ok: GR recovered but posterior looks weird (2nd peak, very broad, etc.) [`:ok:`]
+* :x: GR not recovered (A=0 significantly beyond 90% CI) [`:x:`]
 2nd symbol represents how well does bilby posterior compare to gwtc3 one:
-* :arrow_up: bilby has noticebly better posterior (narrower, 2nd peaks damped/removed, closer to GR) [:arrow_up:]
-* :arrow_down_small: bilby is noticeably worse (wider, more 2nd peaks, farther from GR) [:arrow_down_small:]
-* :neutral_face: both posteriors look more or less the same [:neutral_face:]
+* :arrow_up: bilby has noticebly better posterior (narrower, 2nd peaks damped/removed, closer to GR) [`:arrow_up:`]
+* :arrow_down_small: bilby is noticeably worse (wider, more 2nd peaks, farther from GR) [`:arrow_down_small:`]
+* :neutral_face: both posteriors look more or less the same [`:neutral_face:`]
 <table>
 
 <tr>