377:. I have read this article many times—following an invitation from the nominator, I made a series of minor edits during May–June of this year, mainly to help polish the prose. I accept the valid criticism of the length of the lead, but I can't see this being an obstacle to promotion. I think the article should stick with Shakespeare's dramatisation, since this is the most widely known and perhaps the only one that has misled history teachers. I agree that reliable sources could be a problem for modern dramatisations and add that there could be a danger of straying off topic; this is a history article after all. In my view, this contribution satisfies all the FA criteria and establishes a high standard.
832:"Slender but strong, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him a decisive man who was more interested in commerce." I think this sentence would read better if Henry's "decisive" attribute was listed with his other positive qualities, thus: "Slender but strong and decisive, Henry lacked a penchant for battle and was not much of a warrior; chroniclers such as Polydore Vergil and Pedro de Ayala found him more interested in commerce."
853:"Additionally, Stanley's position as Henry Tudor's stepfather, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472, did him nothing to win Richard's favour." Suspect grammar: "having taken" relates to Stanley, not "Stanley's position." Also, phrase order seems wrong, and can we avoid beginning "Additionally..."? So how about: "Furthermore, having taken Lady Margaret as his second wife in June 1472, Stanley was Henry Tudor's stepfather, a relationship which did him nothing to win Richard's favour."
468:"The royal court was worried, as Edward V was too young to rule and the Woodvilles, relatives of the Queen Mother Elizabeth, were plotting to seize control of the Royal Council who planned to rule the country until the king's coming of age." The sentence is too long, and needs splitting. Also, I'm a bit puzzled by the wording. "...the Royal Council who planned to rule the country" sounds a bit informal. I thought this was a statutory duty of the Council.
600:? Mostly beautiful or very professional prose, although I've looked only at the lead. This sentence is a little weak: "Literature, from the 15th to 18th centuries, glamorised the conflict as a victory of good over evil—it forms the finale of William Shakespeare's play about Richard's rise and fall." (All literature? Many English plays and poems? I think
398:: Jappalang is one of our most resouceful editors, generous with advice and meticulous in his reviews. He is also one of our worst poets. However, fortunately for him that is not the issue here. This is a meticulously researched article with a gripping narrative, which I am reading with pleasure. I am picking up various minor points as I go through;
435:. As for "a focal point", it is supposed to mean the critics tend to talk about the battle in the film. Maybe a change to "a focal point of attention"? "Critics" is a general term; the article presents the views of a Shakespearian critic, a newspaper reporter, a military historian, and general views gathered by another Shakespearian critic.
1075:
Final
Comment: This is a first-class article which tells its main story brilliantly, with much thoughtful analysis thereafter. I have moved to full support notwithstanding a few minor outstanding issues which are really neither here nor there. Congratulations, Jappalang, and I look forward to more of
790:
I'd still go for the "However..." beginning. At present, in paraphrase, this extract is saying: "Richard had been considered by some as a bit of a military ditherer, somewhat indecisive. However, when he became king he showed a different side" (his "thirst for war" etc. This is not a sticking point,
775:
Darn... I was aiming to show that
Richard was a militaristic man with that statement. Hence, this statement is not supposed to contradict or support Ross' or Carpenter's opinion but rather expand on Richard's attitude (a contrast to the seemingly pacifistic Henry). Any suggestions on how to reword
640:
I think
Jappalang's overstating my involvement, although his kind words are much appreciated. However, I freely admit to something of a blind spot over commas because I can't always decide if a sentence reads more naturally with or without them. I'll proofread when I get the chance and try to tidy
1125:
enjoyed the poetic introduction - but then I've never understood the problem lifeforms have with Vogon poetry... Anyway, supported this at MILHIST A-Class review and, having re-read once more, can't see any reason not to award the bronze star as well - as I've said before, an epic in itself, well
280:
There lies the issue of reliable sources and weightage. Of films, the Battle of
Bosworth Field was criticially talked about for Olivier's and McKellan's films (and even so, focus is not solely paid to the battle). The commentary in the article reflects the criticisms and are of the appropriate
986:
I note what you say below. The events seem to relate more to the early part of Henry's reign, rather than the immediate post-battle period. For example, in an article on the Battle of
Hastings you probably wouldn't refer to William's subsequent suppression of Hereward the Wake. This is just a
400:
before listing any details, can I add my voice to the concern expressed about the amount of detail in the lead? Also, there is rather a lot of clutter at the top of the article – image, infobox stuff, map. I wonder whether a slight repositioning, say of the map, might enhance the article's
428:"This theme is most evident in the Shakespearian play Richard III and, as the finale of the play, the battle has become a focal point for critics in later film adaptations." I am unsure what is meant here by "a focal point for critics". What critics - film, theatre, historians?
902:
I am confused by this sentence: "Richard had been aware of Henry's landing since 11 August, but although he had ordered his lords to maintain a high level of readiness, it took three to four days for his messengers to notify them of
Richard's mobilisation." Some clarification
276:
Comprehensiveness: if you're going to cover
Shakespeare's treatment of the battle, which is a good idea, then you really need to cover its treatment by other notable artists, including film-makers not shooting Shakespeare (I'm sure the battle has featured in historical epics)
255:
OK, here goes. This is a monstrously good article, and will take some time to review properly. The overall impressions are all positive - good use of illustration, good depth of referencing, tone looks appropriate. All of which is excellent. And now on to detail...
413:
Nitpick: "...the battle was won by
Lancastrian Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by his victory..." Are battles won by individuals? Would it be more accurate to say "the battle was won by the Lancastrian forces of Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, who by this
675:
I was trying to point out specifically that
Richard was a "small and slender" man. I think striking these three words could result in a possible "well, he is not tall and muscular, perhaps he is just normal sized or short and flabby?" kind of thought?
886:
Does Elton use the word "idolators"? If so, I suggest you put it in quotes, as it's an odd term. Otherwise I think it is too strong a word here, since it suggests veneration and worship. Another term, such as "ardent loyalists", might be more
91:
608:, BTW. (2) The dash doesn't quite work as a connector for me ("and"?). I look forward to reading the rest. (3) Just a little audit on the use or omission of commas before and after names in the middle of clauses? Unsure.
702:
OK, how about: "Small and slender in contrast to the tall muscular build associated with many of his
Plantagenet predecessors, Richard nevertheless enjoyed rough sports and activities that were considered manly."
672:"Small and slender, Richard III did not have the tall muscular build associated with many of his Plantagenet predecessors." First three words redundant - Richard' size fully covered by the rest of the sentence.
462:
Another dubious "and": "His twelve-year-old elder son succeeded him as King Edward V, and the younger son, nine-year-old Richard of Shrewsbury, was next in line to the throne." Suggest replace "and" with
424:"Richard's force outnumbered Henry's and the king divided his army into three groups (or "battles")" The two parts of the sentence are not obviously related, and shouldn't be connected by "and".
1095:
to address your final concerns. My future endeavour, however, would likely not be of English history, but your words have inspired me; I am going to serenade the FAC masses next with
1049:"to deduce possibly valuable information..." Things can be deduced from information, but information itself cannot be "deduced". Would "insights" be a good substitute for information?
750:
Last sentence of first paragraph reads oddly, given that in the previous sentence Richard has been painted as somewhat irresolute. And why the reference to the Turks?
215:
battle, where Dick got royally shafted due to the circumstances that spun his fate. If you are in the know, your help to identify the location and creator of this
953:
only one minor point: "Well aware of his military inexperience, Henry handed command of his army to Oxford..." Needs to say "own military experience", for clarity.
626:
To Tony: GrahamColm, Malleus Fatuorum and others have brushed up little bits here and there, but EyeSerene is responsible for most of the beauty that is at hand.
40:
419:
Grammar: "...while they decided which side would be most advantageous for them to support." Needs an "it" after "which side", and "for them" is unnecessary
30:
17:
207:
Aye, for those who would dispense with such iambic banter, come sit thee down and feel welcome to say your piece. Take a read of the glorious
243:
I'll add my review here. This is a placeholder to remind me to come and review it when I've had some sleep. Great choice of subject matter. --
107:
457:"extremely" weak smacks of POV. In any event, who alive at that time had a stronger legitimate claim? Edward IV's claim was pretty weak, too.
1214:
1197:
1177:
1162:
1135:
1112:
1085:
1034:
1015:
996:
938:
924:
811:
800:
785:
770:
723:
712:
685:
647:
635:
621:
583:
569:
558:
544:
529:
510:
444:
386:
368:
334:
317:
294:
269:
252:
228:
82:
1025:
resolve the stuff above. As for "Post-battle", these events take place after the fighting. Literally, they are suited for that section.
1146:
The Bertram Wolffe book is listed in the bibliography, but there are no citations to it. Should it be described as "Further reading"?
1206:- sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I was bold and changed the "online source" to "online sources")
1066:
Suggest "a dispute broke out amongst historians that has led many..." becomes "a dispute among historians has led many..." (neater)
746:"Lieutenant general" is a military rank rather than a post, though it might have meant something different then. Can you amplify?
112:
805:
Also tweaked (missed your responses to Jappalang's latest, so my tweaks were made before I saw your latest. Hope they're ok)
301:
Some of the image captions are overlong. Some fairly random decision-making in terms of linking/not linking in the captions.
263:
It's difficult to do this without becoming superficial (given the length of the article), but I've trimmed it a little.
260:
There's too much detail in the Lead. Length in number of paragraphs is right, but each one is too crammed. Cut it down.
304:
I presume the overlong captions are the ones for the battle maps? I have trimmed them a bit, and removed the link to
64:
285:. It is theatric (plays) version that has received the most reviews among academic and respected sources.
216:
1158:
1081:
1011:
992:
920:
796:
766:
708:
579:
525:
212:
1195:
384:
208:
1173:
1108:
1030:
934:
781:
681:
631:
554:
540:
506:
473:"secured Edward V" is not immediately plain. "Apprehended" or "took into custody" would be clearer.
440:
364:
313:
290:
224:
78:
357:
alt text for the lead image as an example; could you please add alt text for the remaining images?
1211:
1131:
200:
282:
975:
I wonder if the events described in the final paragraph can really be considered "Post-battle"?
535:
I will consider the length (and detail) of the lede. Any suggestions where to place the map?
1154:
1077:
1007:
988:
916:
792:
762:
704:
575:
521:
330:
248:
131:
Again many apologies to ole Willie... may the soft dirt cushion his turbulence in his grave...
350:
346:
1189:
616:
378:
1169:
1104:
1026:
930:
806:
777:
718:
677:
642:
627:
564:
550:
536:
502:
436:
360:
309:
286:
264:
220:
74:
1207:
1127:
601:
53:
1103:" It is surely my calling! Okay, "don't panic!" That (Vogon poetry) was a joke.
761:
I've seen the revision. This looks like a sentence that should start "However,..."
326:
244:
236:
305:
196:
1168:
Ealdgyth has pluralised the subheading, and I have removed the unused source.
609:
493:"started prematurely by 10 days" is awkward. "...started 10 days prematurely"?
987:
thought, not a sticking point with me; if you wish to leave it, fair enough.
848:"erupted in bouts of violence" - a bit heavy-footed. "erupted into violence"?
1052:
There is an apparently intrusive "but" near the end of the second paragraph.
962:
1149:
Should the "Online source" subheading be pluralised? (Big point, that)
405:
Here are some detailed comments on the lead and Background section.
308:. Links in other image captions are not found in main article text.
858:"Wary of the baron..." I've lost track of the identity of this baron.
1076:
your historical tours-de-force, if not the "poetic" introductions.
1060:
Shakespearian dramatisation: No comment - excellent and informative.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
1096:
868:
The comparison in the first sentence is amiss – between the first
897:
Do you really mean "suborned", here? (incited to commit a crime)
488:
The verb "manifest" requires an object. Thus "manifested itself"
971:
100 of his king's men" would be clearer as "100 of Henry's men"
1188:
The images all cite sources and are appropriately licensed.
92:
Featured article candidates/Battle of Bosworth Field/archive1
1055:
Uncertain about the "However" that begins the last sentence.
665:
Intro, last sentence - "In a sense" doesn't seem necessary.
117:
915:
I've done a little extra ce on this - see if you agree.
1092:
1022:
892:"...failed to move against him" – need to clarify "him"
881:
Sir Geoffrey Elton – use of title inappropraite in text
498:
432:
354:
178:
Your great deed increases the world's sum of knowledge,
57:
187:
Then, for Knowledge (XXG) and free information's sake,
549:
I have shifted the map into the Background section.
166:
You shall feel a sense of justice, the travesty gone,
145:
In days past, it was not shaped for critical thought,
1101:
Oh freddled gruntbuggly, thy micturations are to me!
172:
Your friends shall sing the litanies of sweet prose,
1222:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
838:whom he could rely on" → "on whom he could rely"
741:"His performance better as "His performances..."
325:More anon as the Bard would have said. Maybe. --
193:Tap keys and scroll pages, boldy and cheerfully;
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
431:I tried to address the first three points with
151:Deformed, unfinished, abandoned before its time
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
497:I have edited the Background section. I hope
1228:No further edits should be made to this page.
574:I have no remaining issues with lead or map.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
1069:Perhaps a Wiktionary link for "toponymical"?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
483:"Discontent for..." → "Discontent with..."
184:Your trusty sword serves the project well.
142:Made glorious by all who laid pen upon it.
96:
190:Stretch your fingers, draw your red pens.
154:Into this project, scarce half completed,
139:Now comes the test of Bosworth's quality
876:. Suggest first four words are deleted.
99:
89:
169:If you do improve a dreadful sentence;
175:If you do help to fill in the blanks;
7:
951:Engagement: a superb battle account;
181:If you do chop off redundant words;
163:If you do replace a wrongful image;
148:Nor made to court the public's eye;
157:Now this article aspires to comply
24:
1153:Otherwise all sources look good.
776:this to get the meaning across?
478:"extrajudicial" is a single word
160:With all four featured criteria.
1141:Additional comments on sources
1091:Thank you, Brian, I have made
1:
1184:Additional comments on images
791:so go with what you decide.
396:Comments, leaning to support
345:Images need alt text as per
343:. Images all have alt text.
604:is an expert on this area,
31:featured article nomination
1245:
965:, or descibe it as a crown
501:address the issues here.
1215:14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
1198:14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
1178:22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
1163:12:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
1136:04:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
1113:11:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
1086:10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
1035:18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
1016:16:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
997:22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
939:04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
925:22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
812:09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
801:08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
786:04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
771:22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
724:09:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
713:08:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
686:04:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
648:09:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
636:16:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
622:10:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
584:21:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
570:14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
559:03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
545:02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
511:01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
445:02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
219:is greatly appreciated.
1225:Please do not modify it.
1121:Don't worry, Jappalang,
563:Lead trimmed further...
530:22:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
387:19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
369:16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
335:15:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
318:22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
295:22:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
281:weightage given without
270:18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
253:14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
229:08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
83:08:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
65:Battle of Bosworth Field
36:Please do not modify it.
1021:Okey, Brian. I hope
1006:Will conclude later.
520:More to follow soon.
56:20:41, 21 July 2009
203:! Bosworth and FA!
1099:poetry! Ahem... "
125:
124:
86:
1236:
1227:
1193:
809:
721:
645:
619:
614:
567:
382:
267:
97:
71:
48:The article was
38:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1223:
1191:
1041:A few last bits
872:and the second
807:
719:
643:
617:
610:
565:
380:
265:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1242:
1240:
1231:
1230:
1218:
1217:
1181:
1180:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1126:done! Cheers,
1116:
1115:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1038:
1037:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
979:
978:
977:
976:
973:
967:
955:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
908:
907:
906:
905:
899:
894:
889:
883:
878:
862:
861:
860:
855:
850:
842:
841:
840:
834:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
754:
753:
752:
751:
748:
743:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
667:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
596:Oh, who wrote
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
490:
485:
480:
475:
470:
465:
459:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
426:
421:
416:
372:
371:
323:
322:
321:
320:
299:
298:
297:
274:
273:
272:
241:
240:
205:
204:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
133:
132:
127:SCENE I. FAC.
123:
122:
121:
120:
118:External links
115:
110:
102:
101:
95:
94:
88:
87:
73:Nominator(s):
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1241:
1229:
1226:
1220:
1219:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1186:
1185:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1120:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1093:these changes
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1059:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:these changes
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
998:
994:
990:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
974:
972:
968:
966:
964:
961:Suggest link
959:
958:
956:
954:
950:
949:
940:
936:
932:
929:It is fine.
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
904:
900:
898:
895:
893:
890:
888:
884:
882:
879:
877:
875:
871:
866:
865:
863:
859:
856:
854:
851:
849:
846:
845:
843:
839:
835:
833:
830:
829:
827:
826:
813:
810:
804:
803:
802:
798:
794:
789:
788:
787:
783:
779:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
749:
747:
744:
742:
739:
738:
737:
736:
725:
722:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
671:
670:
668:
666:
662:
661:
660:
659:
649:
646:
639:
638:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
620:
615:
613:
607:
603:
602:User:Bishonen
599:
595:
594:
585:
581:
577:
573:
572:
571:
568:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
546:
542:
538:
534:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
512:
508:
504:
500:
499:these changes
496:
495:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
476:
474:
471:
469:
466:
464:
460:
458:
455:
454:
452:
446:
442:
438:
434:
433:these changes
430:
429:
427:
425:
422:
420:
417:
415:
411:
410:
408:
407:
406:
403:
402:
397:
393:
389:
388:
385:
383:
376:
370:
366:
362:
358:
356:
352:
348:
342:
339:
338:
337:
336:
332:
328:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
275:
271:
268:
262:
261:
259:
258:
257:
254:
250:
246:
239:
238:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
202:
201:Saint Isidore
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
137:
136:
130:
129:
128:
119:
116:
114:
111:
109:
106:
105:
104:
103:
98:
93:
90:
85:
84:
80:
76:
70:
69:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1224:
1221:
1203:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1155:Brianboulton
1152:
1140:
1139:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1100:
1078:Brianboulton
1074:
1063:Battlefield
1040:
1039:
1008:Brianboulton
1005:
989:Brianboulton
970:
960:
957:Post-Battle
952:
917:Brianboulton
901:
896:
891:
887:appropriate.
885:
880:
873:
869:
867:
857:
852:
847:
837:
831:
828:Lancastrian
793:Brianboulton
763:Brianboulton
745:
740:
705:Brianboulton
664:
663:Commanders:
657:
656:
611:
605:
597:
576:Brianboulton
522:Brianboulton
519:
492:
487:
482:
477:
472:
467:
461:
456:
423:
418:
412:
404:
399:
395:
391:
390:
374:
373:
344:
340:
324:
283:undue weight
242:
235:Comments by
234:
217:glass window
206:
134:
126:
113:Citation bot
72:
49:
47:
35:
28:
453:Background
414:victory..."
401:appearance.
306:Ambion Hill
903:requested.
658:More stuff
606:inter alia
463:semicolon.
135:Jappalang
1170:Jappalang
1105:Jappalang
1027:Jappalang
931:Jappalang
844:Stanleys
808:EyeSerene
778:Jappalang
720:EyeSerene
678:Jappalang
644:EyeSerene
641:them up.
628:Jappalang
566:EyeSerene
551:Jappalang
537:Jappalang
503:Jappalang
437:Jappalang
361:Eubulides
310:Jappalang
287:Jappalang
266:EyeSerene
221:Jappalang
75:Jappalang
1208:Ealdgyth
1204:Comments
1128:Ian Rose
874:crossing
870:invasion
864:Prelude
717:Tweaked
669:Yorkist
359:Thanks.
108:Analysis
54:Karanacs
50:promoted
1190:Graham
1119:Support
1046:Legacy
963:circlet
392:Support
379:Graham
375:Support
351:WP:FACR
341:Comment
327:Dweller
245:Dweller
237:Dweller
100:Toolbox
618:(talk)
409:Lead:
353:#3. I
347:WP:ALT
1097:Vogon
355:added
209:Harry
197:Jimbo
16:<
1212:Talk
1192:Colm
1174:talk
1159:talk
1132:talk
1109:talk
1082:talk
1031:talk
1012:talk
993:talk
935:talk
921:talk
797:talk
782:talk
767:talk
709:talk
682:talk
632:talk
612:Tony
598:this
580:talk
555:talk
541:talk
526:talk
507:talk
441:talk
381:Colm
365:talk
349:and
331:talk
314:talk
291:talk
249:talk
225:talk
213:Dick
199:and
79:talk
52:by
1210:-
1176:)
1161:)
1134:)
1111:)
1084:)
1033:)
1014:)
995:)
937:)
923:)
799:)
784:)
769:)
711:)
684:)
634:)
582:)
557:)
543:)
528:)
509:)
443:)
367:)
333:)
316:)
293:)
251:)
227:)
81:)
59:.
33:.
1172:(
1157:(
1130:(
1123:I
1107:(
1080:(
1029:(
1010:(
991:(
969:"
933:(
919:(
836:"
795:(
780:(
765:(
707:(
680:(
630:(
578:(
553:(
539:(
524:(
505:(
439:(
394::
363:(
329:(
312:(
289:(
247:(
223:(
211:-
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.