1065:. I'm sorry to jump to this section so early in the review, but it seems so far that improvements on this article have been pretty difficult. I still think that it has the potential to become a GA in the future, but it will need some work, and your comments make it seem like it will take a good deal of time to make the wording of this article more clear without sacrificing mathematical precision. In the meantime, I encourage you to focus on making the wording simpler in sections that are of interest to a general reader, and also to add a bit more information (and maybe a new section) on the properties of geometry on the surface of the strip (as opposed to hyperbolic and Euclidean geometry). Thank you for submitting to GAN!
555:
variations. Also "all of which have slightly different properties" doesn't convey any useful information to me: if they are different from each other, of course their properties are different, and "slightly" appears meaningless here. But more to the point, it suggests that the "variations" came first, and then people investigated how they might differ from each other in the properties they had. Really, what came first are the additional properties that mathematicians hoped nice surfaces might have (ruled, polyhedral, developable, curvature-free, etc), and then they found constructions of Möbius strips with those properties. I rewrote the whole paragraph in an attempt to make this point clearer. —
878:"Simple ring" may be less confusing for non-mathematicians, but it is much much more confusing for mathematicians. The reason is that "simple ring" is the kind of phrasing used for technical jargon in mathematics, compound terms with a specific meaning that you have to know if you want to understand sentences that use them. So a mathematician is either going to want to know "what exactly is a ring? what property of a ring makes it simple? where is this defined?" or is going to already know a meaning of "simple ring" and plug that meaning in. But the only standard meaning of the term "simple ring" is
468:. The lead is supposed to provide a brief summary of the entire rest of the article. The specific ways of constructing the Möbius strip occupy a section of the article with six subsections, averaging roughly three paragraphs and many illustrations each. It is a large fraction of the total article. It seems reasonable to me that summarizing this material properly is worth a whole paragraph, and that each of the subsections deserves at least a sentence (although in fact there are fewer sentences in this summary paragraph than subsections). —
1059:
42:
1117:
meet the GA criteria because many parts of it are not very well-written, too dense for an average reader to understand, and because the article's scope is missing a good deal of information and additional sections about the properties of geometry on a Mobius strip's surface. After progressing through
655:
I almost think that it would be worth cutting out the whole chunk of words "has realizations... and its points" (second-to-last sentence of second paragraph). The sentence seems to flow better without it, and I feel once again like this is a level of detail not appropriate for the lede (it would make
326:
No, it would make it incorrect. It's explained in the "properties" section. The strip itself is a two-dimensional topological surface, with multiple embeddings into three-dimensional spaces (for instance, twisting it three times or knotting it makes it different from one time as an embedding, but the
1227:
Same paragraph: "one on which it is impossible to consistently distinguish clockwise from counterclockwise". I prefer "one in which", though it'll sound odd to many readers (we've disagreed on this before). You can draw little ↻ symbols consistently all over its surface, if you use a pencil. If you
1091:
levels? If it's merely that you feel incapable of actually completing the review, because it's going to be too much work (it can be a lot of work), then failing the article is the wrong way to back out. It is punishing me and my efforts for a choice to review that was entirely your responsibility. —
926:
Suggested rephrasing: "Independently of the mathematical tradition, machinists have long known that mechanical belts wear half as quickly when they form Möbius strips. By using both sides (or rather the single continuous side) of the strip at once, the Möbius shape also evens out any curvature that
687:
Thank you for moving through this first round of edits. I apologize if my cuts sometimes feel too draconian, and I agree with a lot of the counterarguments you have made. My main goal here is to get a lede that can be understood fairly well by the average person, because I think that Möbius strips
554:
To me your rewording is vaguer not clearer. It replaces a sentence that contrasts geometry with topology (the point of the section) with inaccurate "variations on the basic": they are not really variations (they are all Möbius strips) and I don't understand which one is called basic and which ones
503:
The section about all the different variations on the Mobius strip could use a sentence of introduction. Specifically, I would preface the sentence "An embedded Möbius strip..." with the sentence "Mathematicians have explored many different variations on the basic Möbius strip, all of which have
327:
same as a topological surface). In three-dimensional
Euclidean space it is always one-sided, no matter how it is embedded, but it has other embeddings in other three-dimensional spaces that are two-sided. This sentence of the lead is intended as a summary of the more detailed explanation later. —
1169:
As I already stated somewhere above, this intuition is incorrect. This is a very common misconception, so it is important to counter it. This sentence of the lead is intended as a summary of the first paragraph of the "properties" section, which goes into some detail about how embeddings of the
443:
The second paragraph goes into a little bit too much detail into all of the specific ways to create a Möbius strip. I would simplify this part to "There are many geometrical ways to generate a Möbius strip, and a physical model can be created by twisting a strip of paper and gluing together the
1090:
WTF WTF was that? It was progressing through minor copyedits and then suddenly complete shutdown for no reason? Can you please point to ANYTHING in the article, anything at all, that is actually far from any of the GACR criteria, before I escalate this serious miscarriage of a review to higher
994:
That's a stronger assertion and would need a better source. The source for this part of the article does not identify a date. It does not, however, state that the date was unknown. The date is unknown to me, because it is not stated in the source. But I am unsure whether the date is unknown to
1121:
I certainly can't stop you from reporting me to "higher levels," but I think that this is a grossly unfair response to the situation. Given the kind of language that you have used in response to my constructive criticism of the article, I suspect that you may not like the outcome of an admin
863:
Similar edit: could you change "annuli" to "simple rings"? I know that "annuli" carries a slightly more precise meaning, but I think that the
History section is one that should be accessible to the general reader, and the repeated use of longer words like this makes it a much denser read.
390:
What you have is helpful. However, do you think you could replace/add to this with something a little bit more conceptual (like "meaning that ideas of "clockwise" and "counterclockwise" are not well-defined on it")? What I'm really looking to do is explain what this means to the reader.
279:
I see, I think I phrased that poorly. The revision I was suggesting was something along the lines of "but it has been featured in Roman mosaics since the third century AD." I understand that this is a very minor change, but I feel like it reads better on my end. Does this work for you?
688:
are a topic which is potentially of interest to people with non-mathematical backgrounds. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't go into the more technical details later, I'm just trying to make the opening of the article easier to read while still summarizing the article's contents.
922:
Suggested rephrasing: "In particular, Roman mosaics have contained images of coiled ribbons since the third century AD. These ribbons can be either Möbius strips or simple rings, depending on whether the number of coils is odd or even, and the existence of odd ones may be purely
788:
I'm kind of confused by the final sentence of the lede, where it describes stories with "events that repeat with a twist." This feels like conflating a topological twist with the word "twist" as a plot device. Do you have a reference for this idea, or could you rephrase it?
176:
Following is a list of changes I would recommend making for overall clarity. Please feel free to debate with me if you don't think any of these changes would improve the article - I don't have that much expertise with topology, so I might be wrong in some of these places.
1177:, it's also possible to find spaces in which a torus can be one-sided, something I find even more counterintuitive, but that's one reason we prove things in mathematics: to distinguish correct implications from intuitions that seem natural but turn out to be false.) —
803:
This is supposed to summarize the paragraph about fictional Möbius strips, which cites a reference for exactly this conflation of ideas. It appears to be a fairly common metaphor in literary analysis. Our article for of the pieces of fiction linked in that paragraph,
703:
I definitely agree that this part of the article should, as much as possible, be readable by non-mathematicians. There is some unavoidable technicality later, but this is a widely-known enough topic that we cannot reasonably expect all readers to be mathematicians.
723:
I like the sentence about applications of the Möbius strip, but the part about the world map is a little bit confusing. Could you phrase that as "so that points on opposite sides of the earth appear on opposite sides of the strip"?
1112:
I'm sorry if this feels abrupt to you, but I didn't feel like you were cooperating with some very reasonable edits to improve the wording of the piece and make it more accessible to the average reader. Right now, this piece does
1170:
Möbius strip in other 3d spaces than the familiar
Euclidean space may actually be two-sided, in exactly the same way that a sheet of paper in Euclidean space is two-sided. (According to one of the sources for this material,
405:
Ok, changed to a lead gloss involving inability to define clockwise, and added more detail in this same interpretation in the later "Properties" section so that the lead would continue to summarize the rest of the article.
914:
There are a few parts throughout this section where it feels like a lot of the sentences are run-ons. I would recommend breaking them up differently, while preserving the same content and wording, so that they read
321:
How is the strip's "embedding in three-dimensional space" any different from the three-dimensional strip itself? Specifically, could you cut this clause to tighten the sentence without sacrificing any meaning?
772:, which naturally has a two-dimensional structure that can be formed into twisted ribbons. I tried looking on commons for molecular diagrams that we could use to illustrate this point but didn't find any. —
294:
But the Roman mosaics that the references discuss were ONLY from the third century. This does not appear to have been a continuing practice from then until now, which your wording would make it seem. —
633:
That's great, thank you. My last comment would be that it's confusing to mention a cross-cap without defining what it is, so I would say "another version, the self-intersecting cross-cap..."
591:
In your proposed replacement, does "this same shape" refer to the circular boundary or to the shape of the entire
Sudanese Möbius strip? It is unclear, in a way that we should try to avoid. —
186:
Second sentence: for more specifity, could you change "but its appearance in Roman mosaics long predates their work" to "but it has appeared in Roman mosaics as far back as INSERT YEAR"?
1136:
Ok, ecalating. This failure is an atrocity and I cannot accept your behavior in it. You cannot fail an article on a technical topic merely because it has technical parts. —
518:
What, you don't think the sentence "Many different ways of forming geometric structures with the topology of a Möbius strip are known. " already serves this purpose? —
810:, suggests that at least in that case it was deliberately written with the Möbius strip metaphor in mind, and that this idea was incorporated into its typography. —
80:
47:
1166:
intrinsically has only one side, regardless of embedding. And this correction would avoid the term "embedding" with its implications not known by many readers.
70:
362:
It would be useful to include a brief one-sentence definition of what "non-orientable" means ("it is the simplest non-orientable surface, meaning that...")
1246:
Ok, that reasoning makes sense to me. Done. I hadn't realized there was a unicode for ↻! Maybe it would be helpful to use that symbol in the text. —
156:
126:
738:
But the strip only has one side. What are its opposite sides? Instead I tried rewriting it as "opposite each other", without talking about sides. —
122:
52:
107:
1205:
was broken. Yes, I can embed a closed curve in real 2-space so as to be two-sided, and in projective 2-space so as to be one-sided.
1118:
a few rounds of edits, I just decided that I think there is too much work left to go on the article for it to become a GA right now.
950:
Grammar nitpick: Change "Much older, an image of a chain pump... depicts" to "Much earlier, an image of a chain pump... depicted."
214:
Thank you! Small nitpick for clarity: could you say "it had already appeared... since" instead of "it already appeared... from"?
99:
75:
670:
So you want to completely omit the subsection "Surfaces of constant curvature" from being summarized in any way in the lead? —
930:
I copyedited the paragraph with some attention to avoiding overlong sentences. I didn't use your specific wording, though. —
1162:
From the first paragraph of the lead: "Its embedding in three-dimensional
Euclidean space has only one side". Seems to me,
540:
It does serve the same purpose, I was just trying to reword it so it could be clearer. Do you agree with the rephrasing?
165:
I'll start working on this review soon! It may take me slightly longer than a week, but I'm excited to look at this one.
1127:
1070:
1016:
985:
955:
901:
869:
838:
794:
759:
729:
693:
661:
638:
610:
582:
545:
509:
489:
449:
425:
396:
367:
350:
285:
249:
219:
191:
150:
754:"Möbius strips appear in molecules..." What does this mean? Are there actually molecules with a Möbius-strip geometry?
1251:
1182:
1141:
1096:
1000:
969:
935:
887:
852:
815:
777:
743:
709:
675:
624:
596:
560:
523:
473:
411:
381:
332:
299:
270:
235:
205:
1123:
1085:
1066:
1012:
981:
951:
897:
865:
834:
790:
755:
725:
689:
657:
634:
606:
578:
541:
505:
485:
445:
421:
392:
363:
346:
281:
258:
245:
215:
187:
146:
980:
Change "without clear dates for the origin of this task" to "it is unknown when this practice began."
806:
115:
17:
265:
the 3rd century. It would be incorrect grammar to say that the mosaics were since the 3rd century. —
1247:
1178:
1137:
1107:
1092:
996:
965:
931:
883:
848:
811:
773:
739:
705:
671:
620:
592:
556:
519:
469:
444:
opposite ends." (This could replace everything up to "an embedded Möbius strip can be stretched").
407:
377:
328:
295:
266:
231:
201:
1171:
656:
a lot of sense to move the info into a "variations" section or subsection later if you want to).
605:
That's fair. Maybe you could just say "circular boundary" instead of "circular boundary shape"?
1237:
1210:
833:
For simplicity, would it be possible to replace "lemniscate-shaped" with "figure eight"?
420:
This is exactly what I was talking about, thank you. The lede already looks much better.
92:
577:
For brevity, I would replace "the same circular boundary shape" with "this same shape."
465:
1233:
1206:
1158:
I hope this GA review will go ahead, and succeed. I have a couple of suggestions:
1058:
1255:
1241:
1214:
1186:
1145:
1131:
1100:
1074:
1020:
1004:
989:
973:
959:
939:
905:
891:
879:
873:
856:
842:
819:
798:
781:
763:
747:
733:
713:
697:
679:
665:
642:
628:
619:
Ok. I took the opportunity to rearrange the prose to be a little tighter here. —
614:
600:
586:
564:
549:
527:
513:
493:
477:
453:
429:
415:
400:
385:
371:
354:
336:
303:
289:
274:
261:. I changed the tense, but I did not change "from" to "since". The mosaics were
253:
239:
223:
209:
195:
160:
769:
461:
1174:
995:
historians of this practice, or merely unstated in the source I used. —
244:
Strangely, I still don't see the changes - have you made them yet?
484:
Okay, I think that we can leave the detail as is for now.
896:
I think "untwisted ring" is a good compromise, thanks.
134:
103:
1011:
Other than that, this section is overall very clear!
168:
I'll order the review by the Good
Article Criteria:
1201:Thank you for convincing me that my intuition
8:
30:
880:something totally unrelated from algebra
345:Got it, thank you for letting me know.
61:
33:
882:. Instead, I used "untwisted ring". —
7:
1232:to the fabric, of course you can't.
464:, one of the core requirements of
24:
376:Ok, I added a little more here. —
1057:
504:slightly different properties."
1:
1274:
1256:21:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1242:21:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1228:use a pen whose ink soaks
1215:07:20, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
1187:21:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1146:16:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1132:16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1101:16:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1075:15:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
1021:14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
1005:18:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
990:14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
974:18:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
960:14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
940:18:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
927:may develop in the belt."
906:19:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
892:18:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
874:14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
857:18:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
843:14:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
820:02:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
799:22:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
782:05:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
764:22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
748:05:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
734:22:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
714:22:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
698:21:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
680:20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
666:18:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
643:22:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
629:22:43, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
615:21:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
601:20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
587:18:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
565:01:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
550:21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
528:20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
514:18:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
494:21:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
478:20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
454:17:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
430:12:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
416:04:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
401:21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
386:20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
372:17:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
355:21:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
337:20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
304:16:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
290:12:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
275:01:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
254:22:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
240:22:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
224:21:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
210:20:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
196:17:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
161:17:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
768:Yes. Most obviously in
259:Special:Diff/1079845424
807:Lost in the Funhouse
1124:Mover of molehills
1086:Mover of molehills
1067:Mover of molehills
1013:Mover of molehills
982:Mover of molehills
952:Mover of molehills
898:Mover of molehills
866:Mover of molehills
835:Mover of molehills
791:Mover of molehills
756:Mover of molehills
726:Mover of molehills
690:Mover of molehills
658:Mover of molehills
635:Mover of molehills
607:Mover of molehills
579:Mover of molehills
542:Mover of molehills
506:Mover of molehills
486:Mover of molehills
446:Mover of molehills
422:Mover of molehills
393:Mover of molehills
364:Mover of molehills
347:Mover of molehills
282:Mover of molehills
246:Mover of molehills
216:Mover of molehills
188:Mover of molehills
147:Mover of molehills
89:
88:
18:Talk:Möbius strip
1265:
1111:
1089:
1061:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1105:
1083:
1054:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1029:
830:
719:More feedback:
496:
480:
456:
357:
339:
322:
183:
174:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1271:
1269:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1248:David Eppstein
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1179:David Eppstein
1157:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1138:David Eppstein
1119:
1108:David Eppstein
1093:David Eppstein
1078:
1077:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1009:
1008:
1007:
997:David Eppstein
978:
977:
976:
966:David Eppstein
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
932:David Eppstein
924:
923:coincidental."
917:
916:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
884:David Eppstein
861:
860:
859:
849:David Eppstein
829:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
812:David Eppstein
786:
785:
784:
774:David Eppstein
752:
751:
750:
740:David Eppstein
717:
716:
706:David Eppstein
685:
684:
683:
682:
672:David Eppstein
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
621:David Eppstein
593:David Eppstein
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
557:David Eppstein
533:
532:
531:
530:
520:David Eppstein
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
483:
470:David Eppstein
459:
442:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
408:David Eppstein
378:David Eppstein
360:
359:
358:
344:
341:
340:
329:David Eppstein
325:
320:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
296:David Eppstein
267:David Eppstein
232:David Eppstein
227:
226:
202:David Eppstein
182:
179:
173:
170:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1270:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1226:
1225:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1168:
1167:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1109:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1041:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
992:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:
941:
937:
933:
929:
928:
925:
921:
920:
919:
918:
913:
907:
903:
899:
895:
894:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
876:
875:
871:
867:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
844:
840:
836:
832:
831:
827:
821:
817:
813:
809:
808:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
722:
721:
720:
715:
711:
707:
702:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
681:
677:
673:
669:
668:
667:
663:
659:
654:
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
616:
612:
608:
604:
603:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
566:
562:
558:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
529:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
502:
495:
491:
487:
482:
481:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
458:
457:
455:
451:
447:
441:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
413:
409:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
389:
388:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
352:
348:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
324:
323:
319:
305:
301:
297:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
198:
197:
193:
189:
185:
184:
180:
178:
171:
169:
166:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
1229:
1202:
1163:
1156:
1114:
1063:Not promoted
1062:
805:
718:
686:
262:
175:
172:Well-written
167:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
1047:Illustrated
460:Again, see
200:Ok, done. —
104:visual edit
1122:decision.
1027:Verifiable
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
770:graphene
462:MOS:LEAD
157:contribs
76:Criteria
1234:Maproom
1207:Maproom
1175:3026946
1052:Verdict
1037:Neutral
915:better:
828:History
466:WP:GACR
127:history
108:history
94:Article
1042:Stable
1172:JSTOR
1032:Broad
964:Ok. —
847:Ok. —
230:Ok. —
136:Watch
16:<
1252:talk
1238:talk
1211:talk
1183:talk
1142:talk
1128:talk
1097:talk
1071:talk
1017:talk
1001:talk
986:talk
970:talk
956:talk
936:talk
902:talk
888:talk
870:talk
853:talk
839:talk
816:talk
795:talk
778:talk
760:talk
744:talk
730:talk
710:talk
694:talk
676:talk
662:talk
639:talk
625:talk
611:talk
597:talk
583:talk
561:talk
546:talk
524:talk
510:talk
490:talk
474:talk
450:talk
426:talk
412:talk
397:talk
382:talk
368:talk
351:talk
333:talk
300:talk
286:talk
271:talk
263:from
250:talk
236:talk
220:talk
206:talk
192:talk
181:Lede
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1115:not
1254:)
1240:)
1230:in
1213:)
1203:is
1185:)
1164:it
1144:)
1130:)
1099:)
1073:)
1019:)
1003:)
988:)
972:)
958:)
938:)
904:)
890:)
872:)
855:)
841:)
818:)
797:)
780:)
762:)
746:)
732:)
712:)
696:)
678:)
664:)
641:)
627:)
613:)
599:)
585:)
563:)
548:)
526:)
512:)
492:)
476:)
452:)
428:)
414:)
399:)
384:)
370:)
353:)
335:)
302:)
288:)
273:)
252:)
238:)
222:)
208:)
194:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
1250:(
1236:(
1209:(
1181:(
1140:(
1126:(
1110::
1106:@
1095:(
1088::
1084:@
1069:(
1015:(
999:(
984:(
968:(
954:(
934:(
900:(
886:(
868:(
851:(
837:(
814:(
793:(
776:(
758:(
742:(
728:(
708:(
704:—
692:(
674:(
660:(
637:(
623:(
609:(
595:(
581:(
559:(
544:(
522:(
508:(
488:(
472:(
448:(
424:(
410:(
406:—
395:(
380:(
366:(
349:(
331:(
298:(
284:(
269:(
248:(
234:(
218:(
204:(
190:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.