446:"Impact": "groups that had been exposed to few other sources of information, such as women ": I read this part of the WP article as ambiguous, but interpretable as saying that women, "those on low incomes", and "the risk averse" were "groups that had been exposed to few other sources of information". But that's not what I get from the relevant part (pp. 19–20) of Pickard's paper, which is that he removed those participants who had been at least fairly well exposed (participants who I suppose would have included plenty of women, etc), and then made subgroups (women, etc) among the less well exposed. I may have misread Pickard, this WP article, or both. If so, feel free to say so. But perhaps some rewording would be helpful.
437:"Reactions", final sentence: Simply, how impressed should the reader be by 221 thou? Perhaps something like "the third-greatest number to have signed such a petition", or whatever's appropriate. (NB "third-greatest" is merely a product of my imagination.) Incidentally, the bit about 100 thou triggering a debate implies to me that this isn't just any old petition but instead is one of those that go through the website petition.parliament.uk (to which I cannot link). I don't know the name for these, but suspect that they do have a name and that there's a Knowledge article about them.
657:(That's two of the four citations together.) Unsurprisingly, Hix doesn't directly rate its effectiveness (which would require an empirical study, such as Pickard's). He hedges ("looks to me like", "quite"). This is unlikely to have been mere throat-clearing: Hix would, I presume, have had the opportunity to phrase this as he wished. The article's summary drops such nuance, and is much cruder than the original.
424:"Contents", photograph: This photo (we learn if we bother to click on it, etc) is by somebody named Fielding, and Fielding is not Page. If it were Page, then "Using this photograph "; but as it isn't, perhaps "Using a photograph similar to this one " or some other wording that will make it clear that no, this isn't the problematic photo, yet it's more than just some arbitrarily chosen photo of Felixstowe.
1222:
1199:
1181:
1150:
1126:
1098:
1084:
1049:
1031:
1017:
1003:
968:
934:
42:
430:"Reactions", first paragraph. If it's worth saying that Farage condemned the thing as "full of lies", it might be worth saying what one or two of these alleged lies were. I looked at the cited (BBC) source, and it doesn't specify. (It's not clear from the article that anyone aside from the leaflet's authors would have even read it. But ...
880:
Apologies for any inaccuracy in that, but I'm pretty sure that
Glencross does describe a causal chain. This is missing in the article, which lists a number of claims with which Glencross agrees and which he believes are causally related, but (to me) doesn't show any particular "logic". So I'm not so
1054:
I cannot claim to have examined all, or even most, of the cited sources. Paraphrasing/use of the first group of sources I looked at was not satisfactory, but my earlier, critical comments on this has led to a thoroughgoing improvement. As for that of a second group of sources, it's not flawless but
665:
Cited as saying: "UK in a
Changing Europe described the leaflet as 'factual but partial'. The organisation explained, for example, that, while it was 'probably true' that exports of the EU were linked to more than three million jobs, they did not believe that these jobs would necessarily cease to
661:
Web page says: "UK in a
Changing Europe, director, Professor Anand Menon, said: “The government’s leaflet illustrates all too clearly why voters won’t get all the facts from anyone engaged on one side of the debate or the other. The document is factual but partial. It doesn’t tell the whole story,
769:
Cited as saying: "After independent polling revealed that 85% of the
British public wanted more information before they made their decision, on 6 April the government announced that it would send a leaflet to households across the UK, explaining why remaining in the EU was the best choice for the
832:
article, BBC article -- was random: I was unable/unwilling to look at sources behind paywalls, and I chose sources that were cited rather frequently and thus were likely to be important to the article. But within those constraints, there was no cherry-picking; and I didn't look at the use of any
731:
Cited as saying: The leaflet "warns the
British public that Brexit would lead to a decade or more of uncertainty." Also, "The fourth section of the pamphlet lists the uncertainties that Brexit would cause and warns that 'a vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty'." Also, "the
836:
Three/four days ago, I was generally impressed, but disturbed by what seemed to be a tendency to sloppiness in paraphrasing the sources that I did look at. Now I'm happy to see that all the problems I specifically pointed to have been fixed, but I feel obliged to look at the use of a few more
491:
the document ‘Why the
Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK’ (the leaflet) was issued to every household in the UK. This was a requirement of the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and because it was placed in legislation this secured
785:"Linked to exports to the EU" really should be in quotation marks: not only to avoid an (arguably somewhat nitpicky) claim of plagiarism, but also because "linked to" is vague (as Angus Armstrong points out in the "UK in a Changing Europe" page that's cited elsewhere). --
686:
Whitman here isn't as clear as he could have been; but he seems to me to be primarily criticizing the assembly of the leaflet. I suppose the summary here is OK, though it's hard for me to understand and looks to me like the product of insufficient digestion. --
252:
In
February 2019, the University of Sheffield published an analysis of the impact on the British public of exposure to the leaflet, and concluded that it led to a decrease of three percentage points in the probability of an individual voting to leave in the
619:
Year of publication is of course an addition. This reference could be moved immediately after "Sheffield". Simpler and better: skip the reference to this announcement, and instead refer at the end of the sentence to
Pickard's 2019 publication. --
807:
Thank you for your very thorough review. I believe that I have implemented all of your suggestions, but please let me know if you spot any that I've missed, or if you have any other feedback. Thanks again. A Thousand Doors
678:
Whitman: “There’s a bit of a disconnect between the tick boxes on the final page and the contents. The ‘security’ argument that
Cameron’s pushed hard on, and which gets a tick, isn’t really developed in the body of the
862:
This is used in two places. One use isn't at all problematic. As for the other, the article now tells us that "Andrew
Glencross of the University of Stirling said that there were 'good reasons' to accept their logic".
582:
The author's name isn't "Henry Pickard"; it's "Harry Pickard". To say that it's published by "University of Sheffield" isn't wrong, but it should really be "Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute".
682:
Cited as saying: "Academic and media commentator Richard G. Whitman felt that the leaflet's contents did not develop on issues related to security, despite Cameron's having pushed hard on the argument."
662:
and deliberately so. It’s probably true, for instance, that at least three million jobs are linked to exports to the EU. That doesn’t mean those jobs would necessarily cease to exist if we left."
485:
Some space is, properly, given in the article to the cost of the leaflet to British taxpayers, and to the indignation that this incurred. However, here's a comment from a barrister on payment:
881:
happy with this particular paraphrase. OTOH (i) it's not bad (it doesn't seem to say anything that he's unlikely to believe), and (ii) the others I looked at are good. (Tl;dr: It's OK.) --
653:
Cited as saying: "Political scientist Simon Hix described the leaflet as an 'effective piece of rhetoric'"; also, "political scientist Simon Hix called it an 'effective piece of rhetoric'"
575:
Pickard, Henry (26 January 2018). "How the government's pro-remain leaflet shaped the EU referendum". University of Sheffield. (The link provided to it is now dead; the page can be found
597:
But the UK isn't just England. (Incidentally, "UK" could well have been Pickard's little slip. But if it was, then that web page shouldn't have been cited for this particular purpose.)
576:
273:
the University of Sheffield concluded that exposure to the leaflet led to a decrease of three percentage points in the probability of an individual voting to leave in the referendum.
1103:
It's broad enough in its coverage of what the leaflet covered and was discussed as covering. And, rightly, it also looks briefly at what the leaflet was criticized for not covering.
418:"Background", first para: Yes, Cameron has already been mentioned, but it might still be better to call him "David Cameron" the first time he's mentioned in this new section.
393:, some fairly straightforward (I think) comments, requests, suggestions. You are of course entirely free to disagree. But if/where you'd like to comment, please don't do so
405:
Introduction, first para: This bizarrely (amusingly?) gives the impression that it's the EU that's known as Brexit. Better rejuggle the ingredients of this one sentence.
912:
828:
Three/four days ago, I decided that I should investigate the use of some cited sources. I can't claim that my choice of four -- Pickard's announcement, UKC response,
774:
Internal polls aren't independent polls (if anything, they're the reverse). (And the people wanted more information not just from any "RS" but from the government.)
728:
article: "It includes sections on the economy, immigration control and overseas travel, and warns that 'a vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty'."
209:). Please remove these superfluous instances of "url-status=live" (or of course add relevant archive links, so that the instances will be superfluous no longer). --
956:
80:
608:
The bit about 16 including the covers is an addition. (Actually this shouldn't need any citation: the leaflet is a good source about such an attribute of itself.)
47:
612:
Pickard (NB writing in January 2018): "My new research provides evidence that the leaflet did indeed have a significant impact on individual vote preference."
354:
PS a paper by Pickard and also an announcement about this paper. But both the paper and the announcement say "Harry", so my comment above is still valid. --
70:
440:"Analysis", second para: "did not develop on issues related to security" → "did not {address / deal with / elaborate on / etc} issues related to security"
1173:
284:
derived conclusions from the analysis. The university did not. Not even the university's Department of Economics derived a conclusion, as far as I know.
615:
Cited as saying: "The impact of the leaflet voting intentions was researched by Henry Pickard of the University of Sheffield and published in 2019."
960:
952:
126:
1009:
944:
813:
781:
Cited as saying: "The second covers the economic strengths of remaining in the EU—such as the three million jobs linked to exports to the EU"
534:, which sounds very different.) It would be better not to add a version of what AMO writes than to add it in a credulous and carefree way. --
122:
52:
766:
BBC article: Government officials "said internal opinion polls suggested 85% of people wanted the government to provide more information"
711:
1191:
902:
512:
107:
431:
1187:
995:
948:
1112:
908:
99:
75:
859:. Andrew Glencross, "Fact Check special: Government leaflet that makes case for Britain staying in the EU" (The Conversation)
1023:
639:
Various (8 April 2016). "Response to Government leaflet from the UK in a Changing Europe". London: UK in a Changing Europe.
640:
495:-- Abiodun Michael Olatokun, "The journey to legal capability: Challenges for public law from public legal education",
156:
197:
Script warning: One or more {{cite news/journal}} templates have maintenance messages; messages may be hidden (help).
421:"Background", first para: "given them a working majority of 12 seats" → "giving them a working majority of 12 seats"
809:
940:
268:
the University of Sheffield published an analysis of the impact on the British public of exposure to the leaflet,
866:
The issue here is the antecedent of "their". The "logic" that Glencross describes is, as I understand it, that:
721:
This is cited four times. One citation doesn't seem problematic. The other three are very close to each other:
985:
411:
The introduction seems to me to have some unnecessary detail. As examples, we don't need, I think, to read
1090:
1076:
335:"Pickard, Henry (26 January 2018). 'How the government's pro-remain leaflet shaped the EU referendum' ..."
873:"uncertainty over continued UK access to the single market" would " off foreign investment and sterling"
511:
This may be worth a mention. (Incidentally, the article in its current state doesn't seem to mention the
390:
287:
206:
876:
A weakening of sterling "would risk higher prices of some household goods and damage living standards"
1041:
1037:
762:
This is cited five times. Three of the five citations don't seem problematic. As for the other two:
778:
BBC article: The leaflet "claims that 'over three million UK jobs are linked to exports to the EU'"
115:
17:
531:
736:
In the first of these three, "a decade or more of uncertainty" should be in quotation marks. --
756:
339:
However, on both the front cover and page one of Pickard's paper, I read "Harry Pickard". --
1163:
500:
629:
593:
Cited as saying: "The first wave was sent to households in England between 11 and 13 April"
1239:
886:
790:
741:
692:
625:
555:
539:
520:
470:
455:
375:
359:
344:
310:
295:
229:
214:
170:
150:
408:
Introduction, last para: I'd split the paragraph immediately before "In February 2019".
201:
Unless you also provide a Wayback Machine or other archive link, you shouldn't specify
92:
870:"EU withdrawal would create uncertainty over continued UK access to the single market"
604:
Cited as saying: "Including its front and back covers, the leaflet is 16 pages long."
732:
leaflet argues that 'a vote to leave could mean a decade or more of uncertainty'."
671:
1235:
1059:
of sources, complete with archived versions wherever suitable, is first-rate.)
882:
802:
786:
737:
688:
621:
551:
535:
516:
466:
451:
371:
355:
340:
306:
291:
225:
210:
166:
146:
504:
427:"Contents", final sentence: "the last referendum" → "the previous referendum"
890:
817:
794:
745:
696:
559:
543:
524:
474:
459:
415:
that the leaflet has six sections, or that the deliverer was the Royal Mail.
379:
363:
348:
314:
299:
233:
218:
195:
When you edit the relevant section of the article, you're likely to be told
174:
160:
849:. "Government's £9.3m pro-EU leaflet under fire from Brexit campaigners" (
674:, who may or may not have been writing on behalf of the organization.
184:
First, a technical note. As I view the article, I see one instance of
670:
But UK in a Changing Europe attributed all of this to its director,
530:
Actually I can't find this in the act. (The closest thing I find is
590:
Pickard: "sent to all UK households between the 11-13th April 2016"
710:
Mason, Rowena; Stewart, Heather; Grierson, Jamie (7 April 2016). "
650:
Simon Hix: "Looks to me like quite an effective piece of rhetoric"
757:
EU referendum: Government to spend £9m on leaflets to every home
332:"...researched by Henry Pickard of the University of Sheffield"
586:
This is currently cited three times. Let's look at all three.
325:
This WP article makes considerable use of a paper by Pickard:
329:"Henry Pickard of the University of Sheffield summarised ..."
646:
This is currently cited four times. Let's look at all four.
165:
I hope to start on this some time in the next few days. --
443:"Impact": "to voting intentions" → "on voting intentions"
712:£9m pro-EU leaflet is necessary and right, says Cameron
134:
103:
1167:and other media, where possible and appropriate.
497:International Journal of Public Legal Education
186:{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
1172:(images are tagged and non-free content have
8:
833:source but remain silent about my finding.
190:{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
240:Conclusions of the University of Sheffield
30:
397:the following set; instead, please do so
843:. "Clark, Morris & Lomax 2018": OK
492:sufficient resources for this document.
61:
33:
280:I see no evidence for the second. The
7:
601:Pickard: "a glossy 16-page document"
513:European Union Referendum Act 2015
24:
1220:
1197:
1179:
1148:
1124:
1121:Fair representation without bias
1096:
1082:
1047:
1029:
1015:
1001:
966:
932:
755:Landale, James (7 April 2016). "
290:, please rethink and reword. --
911:for what the criteria are, and
929:(prose, spelling, and grammar)
1:
465:Now all fixed; thank you. --
192:. That's nine syntax errors.
1221:
1198:
1180:
1149:
1125:
1097:
1083:
1048:
1030:
1016:
1002:
967:
933:
891:01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
818:08:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
795:05:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
746:05:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
697:01:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
630:01:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
570:
560:01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
544:05:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
525:23:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
475:01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
460:09:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
380:01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
364:04:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
349:09:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
315:01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
300:22:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
234:01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
219:05:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
175:04:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
161:04:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
258:I parse this as entailing:
1256:
1242:) 02:04, 6 February 2023
370:Now fixed; thank you. --
305:Now fixed; thank you. --
224:Now fixed; thank you. --
207:Template:Citation/doc#URL
505:10.19164/ijple.v6i1.1294
1174:non-free use rationales
922:reasonably well written
915:for what they are not)
571:Pickard's announcement
1161:It is illustrated by
1113:neutral point of view
1068:broad in its coverage
759:". London: BBC News.
666:exist after Brexit."
1055:it's good enough. (
244:(No they weren't.)
18:Talk:Pro-EU leaflet
1145:No edit wars, etc.
981:factually accurate
1192:suitable captions
996:reference section
507:
386:First run-through
263:In February 2019:
89:
88:
1247:
1224:
1223:
1201:
1200:
1183:
1182:
1152:
1151:
1128:
1127:
1100:
1099:
1086:
1085:
1051:
1050:
1033:
1032:
1019:
1018:
1010:reliable sources
1005:
1004:
970:
969:
936:
935:
806:
494:
204:
198:
191:
187:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1188:appropriate use
1110:It follows the
898:
826:
800:
753:
708:
637:
573:
568:
483:
388:
323:
242:
203:url-status=live
202:
196:
189:
185:
182:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1253:
1251:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1008:(citations to
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
917:
916:
897:
894:
878:
877:
874:
871:
851:Yorkshire Post
825:
822:
821:
820:
783:
782:
779:
772:
771:
767:
752:
749:
734:
733:
729:
707:
700:
684:
683:
680:
668:
667:
663:
655:
654:
651:
636:
633:
617:
616:
613:
606:
605:
602:
595:
594:
591:
572:
569:
567:
566:Use of sources
564:
563:
562:
547:
546:
509:
508:
499:vol 6 (2022).
482:
479:
478:
477:
448:
447:
444:
441:
438:
435:
428:
425:
422:
419:
416:
409:
406:
387:
384:
383:
382:
367:
366:
337:
336:
333:
330:
322:
319:
318:
317:
278:
277:
276:
275:
270:
256:
255:
241:
238:
237:
236:
181:
178:
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:
1252:
1243:
1241:
1237:
1226:
1225:
1218:
1215:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1203:
1202:
1195:
1193:
1189:
1177:
1175:
1169:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1160:
1154:
1153:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1136:
1130:
1129:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1116:
1114:
1109:
1102:
1101:
1094:
1092:
1080:
1078:
1077:major aspects
1072:
1071:
1069:
1065:
1058:
1057:Specification
1053:
1052:
1045:
1043:
1039:
1027:
1025:
1013:
1011:
999:
997:
991:
990:
988:
987:
982:
978:
972:
971:
964:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
930:
926:
925:
923:
919:
918:
914:
910:
906:
904:
900:
899:
895:
893:
892:
888:
884:
875:
872:
869:
868:
867:
864:
860:
858:
854:
852:
848:
844:
842:
838:
834:
831:
823:
819:
815:
811:
804:
799:
798:
797:
796:
792:
788:
780:
777:
776:
775:
768:
765:
764:
763:
760:
758:
751:A BBC article
750:
748:
747:
743:
739:
730:
727:
724:
723:
722:
719:
717:
713:
705:
701:
699:
698:
694:
690:
681:
677:
676:
675:
673:
664:
660:
659:
658:
652:
649:
648:
647:
644:
642:
635:UKCE response
634:
632:
631:
627:
623:
614:
611:
610:
609:
603:
600:
599:
598:
592:
589:
588:
587:
584:
580:
578:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:OK as is. --
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
506:
502:
498:
493:
488:
487:
486:
481:Paying for it
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
445:
442:
439:
436:
433:
429:
426:
423:
420:
417:
414:
410:
407:
404:
403:
402:
400:
396:
392:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
334:
331:
328:
327:
326:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
283:
274:
271:
269:
266:
265:
264:
261:
260:
259:
254:
250:
249:
248:
245:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:
221:
220:
216:
212:
208:
199:
193:
188:and eight of
179:
177:
176:
172:
168:
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:
1233:
1216:
1210:
1185:
1171:
1162:
1144:
1138:
1120:
1111:
1088:
1074:
1067:
1056:
1035:
1021:
1007:
993:
984:
980:
938:
928:
921:
901:
879:
865:
861:
856:
855:
850:
846:
845:
840:
839:
835:
829:
827:
784:
773:
761:
754:
735:
725:
720:
716:The Guardian
715:
709:
703:
685:
669:
656:
645:
638:
618:
607:
596:
585:
581:
574:
510:
496:
490:
484:
449:
412:
398:
394:
389:
338:
324:
286:
281:
279:
272:
267:
262:
257:
251:
246:
243:
200:
194:
183:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
953:word choice
672:Anand Menon
253:referendum.
104:visual edit
1042:plagiarism
986:verifiable
180:url-status
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
1217:Pass/Fail
837:sources.
824:Follow-up
679:booklet.”
391:Nominator
288:Nominator
247:I quote:
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
830:Guardian
814:contribs
726:Guardian
704:Guardian
157:contribs
76:Criteria
1211:Overall
1091:focused
1038:copyvio
957:fiction
896:Ratings
706:article
321:Pickard
127:history
108:history
94:Article
1164:images
1139:stable
1137:It is
1115:policy
1066:It is
979:It is
959:, and
949:layout
920:It is
905:review
853:): OK
515:.) --
489:. . .
432:Farage
395:within
282:author
1236:Hoary
1190:with
961:lists
907:(see
883:Hoary
803:Hoary
787:Hoary
738:Hoary
689:Hoary
622:Hoary
552:Hoary
536:Hoary
517:Hoary
467:Hoary
452:Hoary
434:....)
399:below
372:Hoary
356:Hoary
341:Hoary
307:Hoary
292:Hoary
226:Hoary
211:Hoary
205:(see
167:Hoary
147:Hoary
136:Watch
16:<
1240:talk
1040:and
983:and
945:lead
943:for
913:here
909:here
887:talk
810:talk
791:talk
770:UK."
742:talk
693:talk
641:here
626:talk
577:here
556:talk
540:talk
532:this
521:talk
471:talk
456:talk
413:here
401:it.
376:talk
360:talk
345:talk
311:talk
296:talk
230:talk
215:talk
171:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
1234:--
941:MoS
714:".
579:.)
501:doi
450:--
1219::
1213::
1196::
1184:b
1178::
1170:a
1147::
1141:.
1123::
1117:.
1095::
1087:b
1081::
1073:a
1070:.
1046::
1034:d
1028::
1024:OR
1020:c
1014::
1006:b
1000::
992:a
989:.
965::
955:,
951:,
947:,
937:b
931::
927:a
924:.
903:GA
889:)
816:)
812:|
793:)
744:)
718:.
702:A
695:)
643:.
628:)
558:)
542:)
523:)
473:)
458:)
378:)
362:)
347:)
313:)
298:)
232:)
217:)
173:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
1238:(
1194:)
1186:(
1176:)
1093:)
1089:(
1079:)
1075:(
1044:)
1036:(
1026:)
1022:(
1012:)
998:)
994:(
963:)
939:(
885:(
857:3
847:2
841:1
808:(
805::
801:@
789:(
740:(
691:(
624:(
554:(
538:(
519:(
503::
469:(
454:(
374:(
358:(
343:(
309:(
294:(
228:(
213:(
169:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.