[ci] yarn format

docs/src/pages/comparing-astro-vs-other-tools.md

@@ -32,8 +32,7 @@ Docusaurus doesn't support partial hydration, and instead makes the user load an
 - **Docusaurus performance score**: 26 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocusaurus.io%2Fdocs)
 - **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
 
-One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [docusaurus.io/docs](https://docusaurus.io/docs) loads **238kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (67% less JavaScript, overall) *after* first load.
-
+One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [docusaurus.io/docs](https://docusaurus.io/docs) loads **238kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (67% less JavaScript, overall) _after_ first load.
 
 ## Elder.js vs. Astro
 
@@ -45,9 +44,10 @@ Elder.js is unique on this list as the only other site builder to support [parti
 
 Elder.js uses a custom routing solution that may feel unfamiliar to new developers. Astro uses [file-based routing](/core-concepts/routing) which should feel familiar to anyone coming from Next.js, SvelteKit, and even other static site builders like Eleventy.
 
-Elder.js was designed to run on large websites, and claims to build one website of ~20k pages in less than 10 minutes (on a modest VM). At the time of writing, Astro builds ~1k pages in 66 seconds but has not yet been tested on 20k+ page projects. Astro is still in early beta, and matching Elder.js build speed is a goal for Astro v1.0. 
+Elder.js was designed to run on large websites, and claims to build one website of ~20k pages in less than 10 minutes (on a modest VM). At the time of writing, Astro builds ~1k pages in 66 seconds but has not yet been tested on 20k+ page projects. Astro is still in early beta, and matching Elder.js build speed is a goal for Astro v1.0.
 
 Elder.js supports both Static Site Generation (SSG) and Server-Side Rendering (SSR). Today, Astro only supports Static Site Generation (SSG).
+
 #### Comparing Eleventy vs. Astro Performance
 
 Conceptually, Eleventy is aligned with Astro's "minimal client-side JavaScript" approach to web development. Eleventy and Astro both offer similar, zero-JavaScript-by-default performance baselines.
@@ -70,7 +70,6 @@ Eleventy achieves this by pushing you to avoid JavaScript entirely. Eleventy sit
 
 By contrast, Astro automatically builds your client-side JavaScript & CSS for you. Astro automatically strips unnecessary JavaScript from the page, hydrating only the individual components that need it. This feature is called [partial hydration](/core-concepts/component-hydration). While it is possible to achieve this yourself in Eleventy, Astro offers it built in by default.
 
-
 ## Gatsby vs. Astro
 
 [Gatsby](https://www.gatsbyjs.com/) is a popular website & application framework for React.
@@ -96,7 +95,7 @@ Gatsby has a great plugin ecosystem, which could make make Gatsby a better choic
 - **Gatsby performance score**: 64 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gatsbyjs.com%2Fdocs%2Fquick-start%2F)
 - **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
 
-One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [gatsbyjs.com/docs](https://www.gatsbyjs.com/docs/quick-start/) loads **417kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (81% less JavaScript, overall) *after* first load.
+One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [gatsbyjs.com/docs](https://www.gatsbyjs.com/docs/quick-start/) loads **417kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (81% less JavaScript, overall) _after_ first load.
 
 ## Hugo vs. Astro
 
@@ -176,7 +175,7 @@ Next.js has great built-in image optimizations, which could make Next.js a bette
 - **Next.js performance score**: 59 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnextjs.org%2Fdocs%2Fgetting-started)
 - **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
 
-One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nextjs.org/docs](https://nextjs.org/docs/getting-started) loads **463kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (83% less JavaScript, overall) *after* first load.
+One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nextjs.org/docs](https://nextjs.org/docs/getting-started) loads **463kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (83% less JavaScript, overall) _after_ first load.
 
 ## Nuxt vs. Astro
 
@@ -203,7 +202,7 @@ Nuxt has great built-in image optimizations, which could make Nuxt a better choi
 - **Nuxt performance score**: 48 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnuxtjs.org%2Fdocs%2F2.x%2Fget-started%2Finstallation)
 - **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
 
-One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nuxtjs.org/docs](https://nuxtjs.org/docs/2.x/get-started/installation) loads **469kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (83% less JavaScript, *after* first load.
+One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [nuxtjs.org/docs](https://nuxtjs.org/docs/2.x/get-started/installation) loads **469kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (83% less JavaScript, _after_ first load.
 
 ## VuePress vs. Astro
 
@@ -224,4 +223,4 @@ VuePress doesn't support partial hydration, and instead makes the user load and
 - **Vuepress performance score**: 63 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fvuepress.vuejs.org%2Fguide%2F)
 - **Astro performance score**: 99 out of 100 [(full audit)](https://lighthouse-dot-webdotdevsite.appspot.com//lh/html?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdocs.astro.build%2Fgetting-started)
 
-One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [vuepress.vuejs.org](https://vuepress.vuejs.org/guide/) loads **166kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (53% less JavaScript, overall) *after* first load.
+One big reason behind this performance difference is Astro's smaller JavaScript payload: [vuepress.vuejs.org](https://vuepress.vuejs.org/guide/) loads **166kb** of JavaScript on first page load while [docs.astro.build](https://docs.astro.build) loads **78.7kb** (53% less JavaScript, overall) _after_ first load.