191:. The word "helmhotzium" only appears once, in the following para: "It remains to be seem whether the IUPAPC will finally allow ununseptium into the official element club. But if it does get the green light, I can take a pretty good stab at what its real name will be. Given that the majority of the other transactinides are named after the relevant research centers, let's assume this superheavy newcomer will be called helmholtzium. You heard it here first." This doesn't make me want to add that to the article, especially labeled as a "proposed name."--
1122:"because the half-life of berkelium-249, the only isotope of berkelium that can be produced in weighable quantities, is only 330 days: after that time, half the berkelium produced would have decayed away" - this might read better if you separate out the sub-point about berkelium-249 from the half-life point, and condensed the text about the half-life.
620:
Isn't that a little different? I mean, yes, both are excited states, but the metastable isotopes are called "metastable" because they last a while instead of promptly decaying like these ones. (Also, the metastable isotopes tend to emit gamma rays instead of having enough energy to expel neutrons out
509:
This is equivalent to what we have now, except we have the thing we use is in
English with their suggested spelling, and your thing is in German. (I am not all that great at inter-language things: does it mean we have to use the German version?) I tried to work this issue around, but I'm not all that
98:
This article is about a rare synthetic chemical element. That alone may seem scary for some readers, yet the best of my efforts have been applied to make this article as readable as it could be. After the first FAC, it was not promoted on the basis of poor prose quality; the article has been improved
1151:
The obvious answer would be, you expect period 7 to be 32 elements long because of the current theory of electronic structures of elements, especially the Aufbau principle, or
Madelung/Klechkovsky rule (these three are basically the same thing), astatine is element 85, so the element directly under
797:
The idea is, berkelium underwent a 90-days-long cooling. I leave the choice of the exact wording to you. I haven't seen a paper giving this more than a brief mention like we do, but the answer coming to my mind would be, they couldn't just cool it once, because it's radioactive and it heats itself,
1091:
You actually have a great point here. Originally, the articles were just established this way. I proposed to change this, and The proposal has gained support within WP:Elements, but the process died after I requested a renaming per consensus, but the process was comducted via a regular articles to
950:
That's how the original 1979 IUPAC recommendations, which first established such naming, expect it to be pronounced. Quoting the recommendations, "The root 'un' is pronounced with a long 'u', to rhyme with 'moon'. In the element names each root is to be pronounced separately." I'll add that to the
401:
I won't fight to death for it, but I think the labels are better off now. If we do the change, then the legend (85At and 117Uus) will still be aligned to the right from their vertical lines, while the electron level labels will be aligned to the left from theirs, and this difference may bring some
1169:
I can't find any. The synthesis was indeed a very tedious and difficult work. Especially now that the element synthesis has been repeated, and it should be recognized soon. And this is not the most interesting element to try: from a point of view of chemistry, 114 and 118 are the most interesting
844:
In the references, sometimes the first and second names of authors are spelled out in full e.g. Audi, Georges; Bersillon, Olivier; Blachot, Jean; at other times all there is the initials e.g. Jepson, B. E.; Shockey, G. C. I'd like to see a consistent approach to the way the names of authors are
859:
I see what you're pointing at. I've made some considerations on whether we should use full names or initials, and I think we'll be better off with the latter (even though I originally wanted to go for full names), mainly because full names are somewhat problematic for non-English names (in
935:
What is the source for the "oon-oon" pronunciation? I know chemists who say "un-un" and I am sure I saw one source supporting "yoon-oon". If the pronunciation is important, it should come with strong sourcing. At present it has none. I still think that listing two separate systems for the
752:
I read and edited as I went. So far it has been a much more interesting story than I was expecting. Only the
Chemical section to go, then notes, the infobox and references. I have four minor questions seeking clarification of some statements and phrases which I'll post tomorrow.
1160:
Nah. Either is fine. We're not talking about superlow temperatures, and we're not writing a super technical text (as you may see, I've done my best to make it as accessible to everyone as possible). There is no special benefit from using Kelvin here, so it is not
1142:
I'd rather disagree. The exact list of the subproducts is not important for the story of element 117, which is why I avoid it. A picture would not hurt; mentioning them in the text could possibly distract a reader from the more important thing given in the
318:
I am under impression "moscovium" has been discussed as a name for 116, but not actually suggested to the JWP. (Not to mention how we have rutherfordium as a name for the element 104, even though
Berkley originally wanted it to be the name for the element
289:
So did any go on record to say that they won't disclose any proposal because of bad luck? And a side-thing, I thought proposals for elements can be reused for others (i.e. Mk was suggested for 116 but rejected so I thought it can't be used for any other).
987:
I trimmed down "Although widely used in the chemical community on all levels, from chemistry classrooms to advanced textbooks, the recommendations are mostly ignored among scientists in the field, who call it "element 117", with the symbol
996:." This text seems to have been added to a lot of these superheavy articles. Most readers will not find the detailed history of the use of the nomenclature all that interesting, and it seems to be contradicted later on. (more to come) --
117:: I gave it a look through and corrected a few grammatical things: otherwise, I don't see any problems. (Disclaimer: I did a substantial amount of work on this with R8R in 2012, but all of the more recent work was done by them.)
1075:
Well done for tackling such a complex scientific topic, and producing a very good article on it! I've got a few queries/requests for clarifications before I'm ready to support the promotion of this article to FA status:
274:
Yeah, pretty much so. I read it once in a
Russian-language source, quoted by a senior Dubna official. (However, I think "the bad karma" also meant how there might be premature arguments over how to name the elements.)
205:
Leaving aside how the GSI announced it confirmed the discovery in Dubna, rather than claimed it did discover it first -- why would an element be named after those who confirmed its discovery rather than the actual
1125:
I've reworked the text to make shorter sentences. (Except I don't really want to cut the "what a half-life is" part: it is intended not for you and me, it is intended for those who have less knowledge on the
1116:
i don't know. Not a single paper I have seen says this. I may give this another look if you want me to, but personally, I don't think it's important: after all, the thing was radioactive, so it heated itself
635:
Yeah, I would rather not. It's not the regular metastability we're talking about when an isomer decays into a lower-energy one, so it could create some confusion, which I would rather want to avoid.--
1139:"All of ununseptium's daughter isotopes (decay products) were previously unknown" - I think these decay products need to be given in the text, rather than relying on a figure to display them.
304:
I can't find it now. I think, though, it is an issue worked around for now. Like they were not confirmed the element will be recognized, so they hare hadn't caught by that point. (Even now.)--
1097:"fusing a berkelium (element 97) target and a calcium (element 20) beam" - this needs clarification, as it's not the beams that are being fused, but the particles in the beam and target.
1028:
that is being done to clean up the prose but I find it hard to aim at a moving target, so I will leave this review for a week or so until the work is stabilised. Ping me if I forget. --
1152:
it should be element 85+32=117. A more detailed answer would be, the more sophisticated computational data also predicts this will happen (which we discuss in the body of the article).
798:
especially given there were radioactive by-products, which were especially intense at heating (but also decaying away faster than Bk), and it took them some time to decay away.--
244:
I looked and didn't find any suggestions for E117: R8R told me before that they think it's bad karma to discuss naming in advance now (^_-)-β. For E115 they dared to suggest
860:
particular, Russian ones and the patronymics; and there may be similar/other issues for names of any other ethnicity). I hope I'll get to fix that sometime later today.--
932:, and they are actually easier to read than the IPA keys, so I'd want them in (if I have both IPA and these respells in front of me, I'll use the latter for reference).
1105:"The Russian team sought to use berkelium..." - it would be good to say why a large neutron excess is important for the synthesis of heavy elements in this paragraph.
1092:
move (or whatever it is called), and even the supporters said, move, but some other way, so oppose for now. Now that you bring this issue up, it may be reconsidered.
40:
921:
I took a look at this last night and this morning started hacking at the prose, which needs some work. Some comments have therefore already been addressed.
1157:
Is there a convention in the field to use
Celsius for temperatures? I would have thought that Kelvin would be a more natural unit of temperature to use.
187:
I can see this article was written by some Becky
Ferreira, who I don't know, but she doesn't work for GSI or anything close to that, as I can see she is
99:
and updated since then, but the second FAC hasn't even scored enough attention to stand a chance. Now's a third time; hopefully, it'll bring me luck! --
1219:
30:
17:
925:
oon-oon-SEP-tee-Ιm; I know we have discussed this before. Remind me, what does having the respell alongside the IPA pronunciation guide add?
936:
pronunciation is overkill, and as you say it is optional whether to have it at all. If it is to be there it ought to be strongly sourced. --
1230:
1178:
No. The press release is already used as a reference; and I'm not a fan of the
Periodic Table of Videos, so won't regret losing it.
965:
Thank you, that's genuinely interesting. I still think it has undue prominence on the article but at least it is sourced now. --
592:
1131:"the JINR particle accelerator" - is that the name of the accelerator, or should that be "the particle accelerator at JINR"?
929:
333:
Wait, didn't
Berkeley propose Rf for E104, and then IUPAC 1996 shifted it to E106 to avoid naming an element after Seaborg?
1249:
1208:
1193:
1058:
1037:
1019:
1005:
974:
960:
945:
910:
883:
869:
854:
839:
821:
807:
792:
762:
741:
727:
712:
697:
679:
665:
644:
630:
607:
581:
566:
522:
495:
466:
447:
431:
411:
396:
382:
368:
342:
328:
313:
299:
284:
269:
239:
215:
200:
182:
158:
144:
126:
108:
90:
230:
I didn't mean necessary that source, but were any of the researchers quoted to propose some name? Something like for 118.
249:
1010:
Why not, it's not a move I would argue against. Thanks for taking part, much appreciated; waiting for your comments.--
874:
Indeed, I've found an opportunity to do the standardization work; if I missed anything, feel free to point me at it.--
513:
Whatever is now is ok. But I don't think you should have it as both author and publisher. Use just as publisher.
438:
The refs are on the isotopes page, like they usually are for the element infoboxes. But I've copied them over.
1166:
Are there any future plans to produce more of these atoms that could be mentioned/referenced in this article?
477:
The last two dois don't seem to work. Also, for the book at least be consistent and give the full first names.
359:
Ah, the svg diagram again: can you at least it rotate it 180 degrees? so higher values are on the right side?
1088:, given the temporary nature of that name? (I'm not advocating either way, I'm just asking out of curiosity)
1245:
928:
Okay, as long as we're not going for another debate on this. It's okay to have these either in or out per
626:
603:
443:
338:
265:
140:
122:
1175:
Are the external links worth keeping in the article, or would they be better used as references instead?
1189:
1223:
1100:
I think the phrase itself is okay, but I added a one-phrase-long description of the whole process.
670:
Except for the penultimate comment, where I left a mote, i think everything's been dome by now.--
1241:
1204:
1015:
956:
879:
865:
803:
732:
I'm going though, trying to improve the prose as I go, but I haven't looked at the FA standards.
675:
640:
577:
462:
407:
378:
324:
309:
280:
211:
196:
154:
104:
86:
53:
253:
170:
693:
661:
653:
I think JWP and IUPAC acronyms could be mover after the intro for the sake of ease or reading.
622:
599:
562:
518:
491:
439:
427:
402:
make the pic a little messy. This is the problem about making the pic oriented to the right.--
392:
364:
334:
295:
261:
235:
178:
136:
118:
1054:
906:
850:
835:
817:
788:
768:
Finished the main body of the article. Will now look at notes etc. Only one question so far:
758:
708:
61:
552:
of all the forties, only no. 48 may look problematic, but it appears it doesn't have a doi.
1108:
Yeah, the info was somewhat spattered across the section; indeed, a good catch, thank you.
1222:
has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
1185:
1033:
1001:
970:
941:
723:
510:
good with citing sources, so just tell me how to fix this if I haven't done it right.
1200:
1011:
952:
875:
861:
799:
737:
671:
636:
573:
458:
403:
374:
320:
305:
276:
250:
http://in.rbth.com/economics/technology/2015/08/25/element-115-in-moscows-name_392319
207:
192:
150:
100:
82:
689:
657:
558:
514:
506:
487:
423:
388:
360:
291:
231:
174:
1170:
ones, and for any nuclear stability issues, even-numbered elements are preferable.
1148:"Ununseptium is expected to be a member of group 17 in the periodic table" - why?
1237:
1085:
1081:
1050:
902:
846:
831:
813:
784:
754:
704:
252:), and we should add that (but that's a long-standing suggestion from 2012: see
72:
57:
188:
483:
This may take a little time; skipping for now (but will be back for it soon)
1044:
1029:
997:
966:
937:
783:
What does this mean? Cooled for 90 days? Cooled after 90 days? Why 90 days?
719:
1113:"The berkelium was subsequently cooled for 90 days" - to what temperature?
486:
I meant just add the pages for the used chapter, not all the single pages.
733:
260:). No news for E113 from the Russians, but many suggestions from Japan.
135:
The alt text for the Zagrebaev chart doesn't match its actual contents.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
549:
a few other refs in the 40s might have dois that should be added
387:
Seems better, but I think the atom labels should remain on left?
457:
Thanks for taking time for another read. Much appreciated.--
149:
A good catch. I've written an actual alt text for the pic.--
1025:
617:
note c perhaps should mention/link metastable isotope?
422:
The isotopes numbers in the infobox are lacking a ref.
65:
572:
I've tried to fix these, except where I left a note.--
900:
subject to the reference formatting being addressed.
480:
ref 2 add the doi: 10.1007/1-4020-3598-5 and page #
778:"The berkelium was subsequently cooled in 90 days"
1257:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
830:Notes and info box done; only references to go.
588:42 seems a book series. format it so it is clear
189:a columnist writing about pretty much everything
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1263:No further edits should be made to this page.
1236:template in place on the talk page until the
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates
1134:Why, your suggestion is good, I'll use it.
1080:Is there a case for the article being at
169:There is no claimed proposed name yet?
1199:Thank you for reviewing the article.--
703:I'll have a look at this one shortly.
7:
1049:R8R Gtrs and I are done, thank you.
546:33 doi 10.1088/0954-3899/30/10/014
24:
614:54 probably needs a page range?
698:19:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
680:09:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
666:14:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
645:09:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
631:09:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
608:09:19, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
582:09:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
567:22:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
523:14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
496:14:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
467:16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
448:09:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
432:15:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
412:17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
397:18:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
383:16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
369:15:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
329:08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
314:08:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
300:22:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
285:17:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
270:09:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
240:18:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
216:16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
201:16:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
183:15:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
688:feel free to rc my comments.
1250:20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
1209:08:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
1194:19:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
1059:11:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
884:15:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
870:12:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
1231:featured article candidates
1038:22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
1020:19:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
1006:06:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
975:21:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
961:06:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
946:22:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
911:10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
855:10:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
840:10:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
822:10:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
808:11:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
793:10:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
763:11:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
742:04:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
728:22:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
713:12:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
343:02:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
159:11:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
145:08:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
127:04:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
109:19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
91:19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
31:featured article nomination
1280:
537:16 is missing link or doi
256:, using the Russian name
64:) 20:23, 15 October 2015
1260:Please do not modify it.
373:Sure, why not. OK now?--
36:Please do not modify it.
531:8 is missing accessdate
930:WP:MOS/Pronunciation
748:Comments from Sandbh
595:47 seems a bit off
1071:Comments from Mike
917:Comments from John
901:
1024:I appreciate the
899:
812:OK, that's good.
621:of the nucleus.)
94:
1271:
1262:
1235:
1229:
1226:, and leave the
1048:
79:
48:The article was
38:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1258:
1233:
1227:
1073:
1042:
919:
750:
76:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1277:
1275:
1266:
1265:
1253:
1252:
1240:goes through.
1212:
1211:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
918:
915:
914:
913:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
780:
779:
770:
769:
749:
746:
745:
744:
730:
701:
700:
655:
654:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
615:
612:
611:
610:
589:
585:
584:
556:
555:
554:
553:
547:
544:
541:
538:
535:
532:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
478:
474:
473:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
435:
434:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
316:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
206:discoverers?--
166:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
96:
95:
81:Nominator(s):
75:
70:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1276:
1264:
1261:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:Graham Beards
1239:
1232:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1214:
1213:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1168:
1167:
1165:
1159:
1158:
1156:
1150:
1149:
1147:
1141:
1140:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1130:
1124:
1123:
1121:
1115:
1114:
1112:
1107:
1106:
1104:
1099:
1098:
1096:
1090:
1089:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1070:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
986:
976:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
958:
954:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
934:
933:
931:
927:
926:
924:
923:
922:
916:
912:
908:
904:
898:
895:
894:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
829:
823:
819:
815:
811:
810:
809:
805:
801:
796:
795:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
767:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
729:
725:
721:
718:So will I. --
717:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
683:
682:
681:
677:
673:
668:
667:
663:
659:
652:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
616:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
596:
594:
590:
587:
586:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
551:
550:
548:
545:
542:
539:
536:
533:
530:
524:
520:
516:
512:
511:
508:
507:
505:
504:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
482:
481:
479:
476:
475:
471:
470:
469:
468:
464:
460:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
413:
409:
405:
400:
399:
398:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
317:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
217:
213:
209:
204:
203:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
167:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
146:
142:
138:
134:
131:...although:
130:
129:
128:
124:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
106:
102:
93:
92:
88:
84:
78:
77:
74:
71:
68:
66:
63:
59:
55:
54:Graham Beards
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1259:
1256:
1216:Closing note
1215:
1183:
1084:rather than
1074:
993:
989:
920:
896:
772:
771:
751:
702:
685:
669:
656:
623:Double sharp
600:Double sharp
557:
456:
440:Double sharp
335:Double sharp
262:Double sharp
257:
245:
137:Double sharp
132:
119:Double sharp
114:
97:
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
1086:Ununseptium
1082:Element 117
845:presented.
73:Ununseptium
951:article.--
171:Helholzium
1224:WP:FAC/ar
1220:candidate
1186:Mike Peel
773:Discovery
540:20 author
246:moscovium
1218:: This
1184:Thanks.
1143:article.
258:ΠΌΠΎΡΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΈΠΉ
50:promoted
1126:topic.)
897:Support
690:Nergaal
686:Support
658:Nergaal
598:Fixed.
559:Nergaal
515:Nergaal
488:Nergaal
424:Nergaal
389:Nergaal
361:Nergaal
319:106.)--
292:Nergaal
232:Nergaal
175:Nergaal
133:Comment
115:Support
1051:Sandbh
903:Sandbh
847:Sandbh
832:Sandbh
814:Sandbh
785:Sandbh
755:Sandbh
705:Sandbh
543:29 doi
58:FACBot
1161:used.
990:(117)
472:Refs:
16:<
1246:talk
1205:talk
1190:talk
1055:talk
1045:John
1034:talk
1030:John
1026:work
1016:talk
1002:talk
998:John
971:talk
967:John
957:talk
942:talk
938:John
907:talk
880:talk
866:talk
851:talk
836:talk
818:talk
804:talk
789:talk
759:talk
738:talk
724:talk
720:John
709:talk
694:talk
676:talk
662:talk
641:talk
627:talk
604:talk
593:this
591:per
578:talk
563:talk
519:talk
492:talk
463:talk
444:talk
428:talk
408:talk
393:talk
379:talk
365:talk
339:talk
325:talk
310:talk
296:talk
281:talk
266:talk
254:this
236:talk
212:talk
197:talk
179:talk
155:talk
141:talk
123:talk
105:talk
87:talk
62:talk
56:via
1238:bot
1201:R8R
1117:up.
1012:R8R
994:117
992:or
953:R8R
876:R8R
862:R8R
800:R8R
734:YBG
672:R8R
637:R8R
574:R8R
459:R8R
404:R8R
375:R8R
321:R8R
306:R8R
277:R8R
208:R8R
193:R8R
151:R8R
101:R8R
83:R8R
52:by
1248:)
1234:}}
1228:{{
1207:)
1192:)
1057:)
1036:)
1018:)
1004:)
973:)
959:)
944:)
909:)
882:)
868:)
853:)
838:)
820:)
806:)
791:)
761:)
740:)
726:)
711:)
696:)
678:)
664:)
643:)
629:)
606:)
580:)
565:)
534:12
521:)
494:)
465:)
446:)
430:)
410:)
395:)
381:)
367:)
341:)
327:)
312:)
298:)
283:)
275:--
268:)
238:)
214:)
199:)
181:)
173:?
157:)
143:)
125:)
107:)
89:)
67:.
33:.
1244:(
1203:(
1188:(
1053:(
1047::
1043:@
1032:(
1014:(
1000:(
969:(
955:(
940:(
905:(
878:(
864:(
849:(
834:(
816:(
802:(
787:(
757:(
736:(
722:(
707:(
692:(
674:(
660:(
639:(
625:(
602:(
576:(
561:(
517:(
490:(
461:(
442:(
426:(
406:(
391:(
377:(
363:(
337:(
323:(
308:(
294:(
279:(
264:(
248:(
234:(
210:(
195:(
177:(
153:(
139:(
121:(
103:(
85:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.