diff --git a/bip-schnorr.mediawiki b/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
index 573a6782..43ea9d75 100644
--- a/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
+++ b/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
@@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ Using the first option would be slightly more efficient for verification (around
 # Implicitly choosing the Y coordinate that is even<ref>Since ''p'' is odd, negation modulo ''p'' will map even numbers to odd numbers and the other way around. This means that for a valid X coordinate, one of the corresponding Y coordinates will be even, and the other will be odd.</ref>.
 # Implicitly choosing the Y coordinate that is a quadratic residue (has a square root modulo the field size)<ref>A product of two numbers is a quadratic residue when either both or none of the factors are quadratic residues. As ''-1'' is not a quadratic residue, and the two Y coordinates corresponding to a given X coordinate are each other's negation, this means exactly one of the two must be a quadratic residue.</ref>.
 
-In the case of ''R'' the third option is slower at signing time but a bit faster to verify, as the quadratic residue of the Y coordinate can be computed directly for points represented in
+In the case of ''R'' the third option is slower at signing time but a bit faster to verify, as it is possible to directly compute whether the Y coordinate is a quadratic residue when the points are represented in
 [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cryptography/Prime_Curve/Jacobian_Coordinates Jacobian coordinates] (a common optimization to avoid modular inverses
 for elliptic curve operations). The two other options require a possibly
 expensive conversion to affine coordinates first. This would even be the case if the sign or oddness were explicitly coded (option 2 in the previous design choice). We therefore choose option 3.