As I posted on FB

Apart from failing to mention the photon energy range in the article. It makes an obvious error quoting
“The peak brilliance of the gamma rays was measured to be greater than 1023 photons per second, per square milliradian, per square millimetre, per 0.1% bandwidth.”
Whereas the Nature paper abstract actually says
“10^8 gamma-ray photons, with spectra peaking between 20 and 150keV, and a peak brilliance >10^23photons s^−1mrad^−2mm^−2 per 0.1% bandwidth, are measured for 700MeV beams, with 10^7 photons emitted between 1 and 7MeV”
Only 20 orders of magnitude out!

It should have been obvious to any science journalist that 1023 photons per second is not very intense, and maybe it should be written with a superscript, or if they can’t then at least as 10^23 or 1e23 notation
Is it too much to ask that proof reading should involve checking the numbers as well as spelling grammar and punctuation?