Corrections Policy
A correction can involve a scientific fact, evidence label, visual model, map, PDF, broken source, accessibility problem or software defect. Reports are checked against the relevant evidence and implementation.
What to report
- A factual or numeric scientific error.
- A source that no longer supports the claim shown.
- A misleading structure, orbital, phase or geography visualization.
- A mismatch between the web page and student PDF.
- A broken interaction, inaccessible control or layout regression.
How to report it
Email elementlookup@gmail.com with the page URL, the exact issue, what you expected to see and any authoritative reference that helps verify the correction.
Review process
We reproduce technical issues where possible and compare scientific reports with the underlying source, condition, isotope, phase, allotrope, evidence class or dataset year. If the issue belongs to a shared component, the affected library is audited rather than assuming the defect is isolated.
Publishing corrections
Confirmed corrections are incorporated into the relevant content/data model and interface. Where a change affects substantive science, linked student material should be reviewed as part of the same release. Major shared fixes are recorded in release documentation so the correction is carried forward.
Response time
Reports are prioritized by impact and complexity. We do not promise a fixed response time, because scientific verification and cross-page regression work can require different levels of review.
These pages document Element Lookup's current operating and editorial practices. They are not individualized legal advice. Laws and platform requirements vary by jurisdiction, so the site owner should obtain professional legal advice for business-specific obligations when appropriate.
Found an error, something unclear, or a missing topic?
Tell us what you noticed. Feedback goes to a private review queue and is never published automatically.