566:
office numbers are important to the subject's notability, omitted from almost all sources on the subject aside from those which publish such data routinely. The numbers are fine for a documentary, but not impressive and seemingly irrelevant to its accolades. On the other hand, this film has been significant in the way it has had an affect on the world outside of cinema -- as in, that's among the things it's most notable for, and the reason for many of the accolades. For that reason, if we're tightening the lead, I would prefer to omit details like box office and premiere location that don't connect to the accolades in favor of including a fuller summary of why it's received the attention it has. I don't know if I'm communicating that well, so my apologies if this comes off as defensive/difficult. I'm new to the process, so may not be familiar with some typical factors that are otherwise taken for granted. —
585:
in the main article as well. I think "current" is not needed the social significance sentence."As the institutions and people responsible...", this implies they are still in power, are the perpetrators still in government, I thought
Suharto was overthrown in the 1990s? The review aggregator sentence could be reworded "Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator surveyed 137 reviews and judged 96% to be positive". No need to include the consensus. The Metacritic one could also be reworded. The sentence which begins "Most...." could be reworded to "The Act of Killing garnered awards and nominations primarily in the Best Documentary category and for Oppenheimer's direction."
396:*The lead is far too long and detailed. This is a subarticle. It is an interesting read but much of the information is better placed in the main film article. These type of lists tend to follow a pattern of 1st para= what the film is about, people involved in the making of the film. 2nd para= where it premiered, release schedule, box office, reception by critics. 3rd para=performance at the major awards e.g. Oscars, Golden Globes, BAFTAs followed by its performance at more minor awards such as Guild Awards, Critics Associations, Critics' Choice or Independent Spirit Awards.
1116:– I don't recall seeing you here before, Rhododendrites. If this is your first time nominating a list here, welcome to FLC! I took a look at the sources, and they all appear to be well-formatted and reliable enough. Spot-checks of references 19, 41, and 59 revealed no issues. The only problem came from running the page through the link-checker tool; reference 27 (Biografilm Festival) is showing up as a dead link. This will need to be repaired or replaced; perhaps the Internet Archive made a copy of it.
562:
have trimmed a little bit of the lead detail, combined a couple of the paragraphs, and added premiere and box office information. The main article definitely needs work (I hope to come back to it soonish), and that may also lend to an assessment of excess detail here, but to the extent that's a factor (if at all), I would argue that's a problem with the main article rather than this.
188:
wound up being a bit more time than I anticipated, going back to find other nominations, adding data, navigating a whole lot of 4-year-old broken festival/awards sites, but I think it's in good condition now. After reworking and expanding the lead, I feel fairly confident that it's FL material. I haven't been through this process before, though, so I look forward to your feedback. —
605:
and
Metacritic lines (the latter along the lines of the former), though I do have to say I prefer to see the %/score first (not that I feel strongly about it). Also reworded the "Most awards..." line. Wasn't sure if you intended to end the sentence after "for Oppenheimer's direction", leaving off mention of the other awards, Sorensen, etc., so left those in for now. Thanks again. —
997:
498:
460:
447:
307:
Reworded from "According to
Oppenheimer, the film is not a historical account of the killings themselves, but rather 'about a regime...'" to "The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to Oppenheimer, it is 'about a regime...'".
208:
I would rephrase the follow sentence (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, but promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during the purge) to (The film's primary subjects were petty criminals at the time, who were promoted to be leaders of a powerful death squad during
584:
You're clearly very passionate about this important film but I only comment to improve articles so don't take it as an "attack" on your work that is not my purpose. The lead does look better. I agree the parent article requires a significant amount of work and much of this would be useful to include
561:
Regarding the lead, I won't disagree that it could be tightened, but "far too long and detailed" is surprising to me. My sense, reading it back now, is that starting off the "what it's about" paragraph with historical background gets us off on the wrong foot in terms of "too long and detailed". :) I
760:
It's possible the final quote ("According to
Oppenheimer...") could go, though I do think the language he uses conveys the shock/impact of the film in a way that wouldn't be appropriate outside of quotes. :) That said, I'm open to removing it as I can appreciate that my own interest in the film may
604:
the "As the institutions..." line to say "As many of the institutions.." to be a bit safer without getting into details (I'd have a bit more research/sourcing to do to clarify the timeline sufficiently otherwise, and it would further elongate the lead). I went ahead and reworded the Rotten
Tomatoes
599:
Just to be clear, I don't feel attacked and appreciate lending your experience with FLs to this. I just want to challenge if I disagree or learn more if I don't understand. :) I removed "current", though it may be good to add, in some way, that the scope isn't the social significance in general but
565:
I would think that what information is relevant for the lead would require some flexibility between types of films. Box office figures for a
Hollywood film may contribute to a film's sense of success and therefore could be said to be relevant to a list of accolades. But I don't think that e.g. box
255:
I'm not sure I understand the first point. The "...at the time, who..." doesn't sit quite right with me. The but is to contrast the roles of petty criminal and a quasi-official position of power on a death squad. Sort of like "They were nobodies at the time, but came to have a lot of power." What
187:
It's a critically acclaimed film with real world impact -- and some of that impact has been directly connected to award nominations/critical success. I started the list a few years ago and, after coming across a couple other "List of accolades..." FLs recently, I felt up to the work. Granted, it
733:
The film has historical context, but primarily concerns the role of the killings in people's lives today. According to
Oppenheimer, it is "about a regime in which genocide has, paradoxically, been effaced and celebrated – in order to keep the survivors terrified, the public brainwashed, and the
529:
I could not find a reliable source for the Online Film and
Television Awards date, unfortunately. I may take another look tomorrow, but I do remember checking for secondary as well as archived primary sources without luck. Frankly thought about removing it but for the existence of a stand-alone
412:
Reference publishers needs work. Only newspapers or magazines or online versions of these should be italicised. Not all the references have adequate information. They should bare minimum have url, title, publisher, accessdate, date (if present), author (if present). The publisher should also be
858:
I think the New York Film
Critics Circle can be removed, only a runner up mention. Officially NYFCC does not release runner ups, they only emerge based on leaks from participants so I can see why finding a reliable source will be difficult. HitFix I think is counted as a reliable source. I've
714:
Thanks for the follow-up feedback, and for your efforts fixing some things on the page. I'm still unclear about use of certain reference parameters in particular examples, but I also don't have any objection to any of your changes so I'll stow that and perhaps ask on your talk page down the
359:
752:
When he was taken by surprise by their boasting, the basic idea of the film shifted from being about justifications of the past to how it affects people in the present. (i.e. the first and second of the three sentences kind of go together and then the quote describes the new focus). I've
469:
Before I go back through all of the citations, could you clarify what you mean by "reference publishers"? The publisher parameter? I almost never use it unless "work" doesn't speak for itself. Is this a mistake? I do add all of the fields you list where possible (but with work instead of
358:: Great work with this list! I can tell you put a lot of time and energy into this and it was a very compelling read (which is very difficult to do for a list of all things). I can definitely support this, and good luck with the rest of the review. If possible, could you look at my
128:
797:
Ok. Sorry about the delay. I believe all of the refs have accessdates other than a book and those with archivedates. Also addressed the problematic references. Removed a couple that were unnecessary to begin with, replaced a couple others. The one that remains is
326:
That makes more sense to me. I was a little bit confused on the original wording on how this was separate from a historical account (as I have never seen or even heard of this film as terrible as that probably sounds). Thank you for the rewording/revision.
263:
That make sense to me. For some reason in my initial reading, I did not quite understand what you were referencing so I apologize for that. I think your rearrangement is stronger and I would recommending using that instead if that is okay with you.
1168:
The bot sometimes delivers false positives, so it's important to check manually like you did. Since that was the only outstanding issue and it appears that a consensus has been reached, I'll go ahead and promote the list now. Nice work.
1145:
Indeed my first time at FLC. Thanks. :) Oddly, that
Biografilm came up above as a broken link, too, but when I click it (now, as then) it's perfectly accessible. Maybe it's a bot error? Regardless, for good measure I've archived it and
832:
is an affirmation, though it was a long time ago, with little participation). I see a couple smaller sites that pulled from it, a few awards round-ups that list only winners, and a woefully inadequate official site (via archive)... —
99:
94:
103:
86:
537:
I've nominated the article for AFD as I don't think it is a notable awarding body. I see that your PROD was deleted by another user who said they'd improve it but then didn't add any further references.
828:, Houston Film Critics Society]). It was originally from HitFix, which is now part of Uproxx. My impression is that HitFix isn't so bad for this sort of basic information (the one mention on
769:
Sorry, I'm not seeing which ref you mean. Ref 26 (and the few around it, including the ref for Biografilm, if that's what you mean) are all working for me. Perhaps it was a temporary issue?
1054:
Thanks. Sorry to ask a FLC noob question, but is there a certain timeframe or number of reviewers we're looking for here? To be clear, I know that there's no fixed length other than : -->
144:
215:
In the final sentence of the lead's second paragraph, I think something should be added before the final quote to fully explain how the film is different than a "historical account".
90:
690:
I've gone through the list. I found certain references that need to be replaced by more reliable sources: Uproxx, Alt Film Guide, Awards Circuit, Ekstra Bladet, and About.com
746:
Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck by the extent to which they not only rationalized but boasted about their participation.
362:
as well? I apologize for being so bold to ask for your input so feel free to say no if you do not have the time or energy. Good luck with this and your future projects.
1235:
1182:
1159:
1129:
1100:
1082:
1064:
1038:
1013:
979:
945:
926:
889:
868:
842:
815:
781:
699:
682:
645:
614:
594:
575:
550:
518:
490:
425:
389:
371:
336:
317:
298:
273:
236:
197:
176:
65:
82:
75:
799:
658:
The last two sentences on the first paragraph would be better placed in the main article. The prior sentences give enough info on the content of the film.
149:
40:
1073:
I'd normally look for at least three supports. As for ten days, I can't remember the last time a nomination was ready in less than two weeks!
1197:
256:
about rearranging as "The film's primary subjects had been petty criminals, but during the purge they came to lead a powerful death squad."?
30:
17:
1212:
600:
the social significance in the present (i.e. not c?ncerned with what happened between 1966 and when the film was shot). I also
1055:=10 days; I'm mainly asking if there's an informal number you look for to decide whether consensus has emerged. Thanks. —
803:
1078:
1034:
975:
941:
212:
I am a little confused by the phrase "film justifications". Maybe specify whose justifications are being filmed?
282:
Good point. Changed to "Oppenheimer set out to film the ways people justified the killings, and was struck..."
661:
What's the reference for the "As many of the institutions and people responsible remained in power" sentence?
541:
I went ahead and removed it from the list. It will likely be deleted, and the date was bugging me, too. :) —
478:
477:
Use work for things like the film newspaper "The Hollywood Reporter" who are published by an organisation (
825:
1074:
1049:
1030:
989:
971:
937:
1229:
1176:
1123:
1152:
1093:
1057:
1006:
882:
853:
835:
808:
774:
719:
607:
568:
543:
511:
350:
310:
222:
190:
169:
1205:
922:
864:
695:
678:
641:
590:
486:
421:
385:
481:), and publisher for things like "Chicago Film Critics Association" as they are the publisher.
209:
the purge) as the "but" sentence construction is a little odd in this context at least to me.
367:
332:
294:
269:
232:
61:
829:
1223:
1170:
1140:
1117:
53:
227:
Everything looks good; once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination.
918:
875:
860:
792:
691:
674:
637:
586:
482:
435:
417:
381:
129:
Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by The Act of Killing/archive1
120:
1219:
772:
Will come back later to add accessdates and improve problematic refs. Thanks. —
652:
Sorry for the long delay, I have been very busy at work. The lead looks better.
363:
328:
290:
265:
247:
228:
57:
761:
drive me to think more description is necessary than is actually the case. :)
766:
Added one existing ref and added a new ref to the "still in power" sentence.
655:
I would suggest removing the last sentence, as it is about a different film.
880:
Ok I went ahead and removed NYFCC. Am I missing anything from the above? —
1204:, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
670:
accessdates should be present for all references except archived ones.
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
806:. Would it be better to just remove that line from the table? —
824:
Oops, forgot one Uproxx ref. Also having trouble replacing it (
402:
Online Film and Television Awards has no date for the ceremony
802:. I seem to be having trouble finding a replacement for the
399:
The table requires rowscopes and colscopes for accessibility
755:
had a go at rewording and condensing these sentences a bit
154:
757:
to make their purpose a bit clearer (and tighten it up).
725:
Regarding the last two sentences of the first paragraph:
1147:
754:
601:
506:
116:
112:
108:
68:
740:
I think these are also tied to the preceding sentence:
664:
I'll go through and fix the reference formats myself.
184:I am nominating this for featured list because...
1091:Ok, thanks. Not in any sort of rush, of course. —
1243:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
83:List of accolades received by The Act of Killing
76:List of accolades received by The Act of Killing
743:
730:
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
1249:No further edits should be made to this page.
1218:template in place on the talk page until the
41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
308:Is this along the lines of what you mean? —
734:perpetrators able to live with themselves."
405:The recipients needs to sort by last name.
931:
631:
375:
133:
960:"$ 0.5 million" specify and link to US$ .
934:
634:
378:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates
136:
126:
7:
859:certainly used it before in my FLCs.
24:
289:Thank you for the clarification.
995:
917:Good list on an important film.
718:Removed the last sentence about
496:
458:
445:
963:"for an Oscar," Academy Award.
1:
957:" 500,000-2,000,000" en-dash.
372:01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
337:01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
318:01:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
299:01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
274:01:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
237:00:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
198:18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
177:18:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
804:New York Film Critics Circle
507:Tweaked a bunch of refs here
1266:
1236:21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1183:21:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1160:21:33, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1130:21:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1101:22:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
1083:13:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
1065:13:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
1039:03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
1014:03:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
980:02:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
946:03:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
782:13:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
700:14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
683:12:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
440:Thanks for your feedback.
390:12:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
252:Thanks for your comments.
66:00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
927:18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
890:02:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
869:16:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
843:12:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
816:02:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
667:Ref 26 (Biograf) is dead.
646:18:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
615:05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
595:12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
576:01:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
551:05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
519:05:08, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
491:12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
426:21:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
1246:Please do not modify it.
1213:featured list candidates
1029:my concerns addressed.
413:linked at first mention.
409:should also sort by Act.
36:Please do not modify it.
31:featured list nomination
966:"well known" hyphenate.
936:Resolved comments from
636:Resolved comments from
479:Prometheus Global Media
380:Resolved comments from
970:Otherwise very good.
749:
737:
203:Comments from Aoba47
720:The Look of Silence
407:The Act of Killing
1023:
1022:
911:
910:
747:
735:
630:
629:
180:
162:
161:
1257:
1248:
1232:
1226:
1217:
1211:
1208:, and leave the
1179:
1173:
1157:
1155:
1144:
1126:
1120:
1098:
1096:
1075:The Rambling Man
1062:
1060:
1053:
1050:The Rambling Man
1031:The Rambling Man
1011:
1009:
1003:
999:
998:
993:
990:The Rambling Man
972:The Rambling Man
938:The Rambling Man
935:
932:
887:
885:
879:
857:
840:
838:
813:
811:
796:
779:
777:
745:
732:
635:
632:
612:
610:
573:
571:
548:
546:
516:
514:
504:
500:
499:
466:
462:
461:
453:
449:
448:
439:
379:
376:
354:
315:
313:
251:
226:
195:
193:
174:
172:
167:Nominator(s): —
165:
134:
124:
106:
38:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1244:
1230:
1224:
1215:
1209:
1177:
1171:
1153:
1151:
1138:
1124:
1118:
1094:
1092:
1058:
1056:
1047:
1007:
1005:
996:
994:
987:
883:
881:
873:
851:
836:
834:
809:
807:
790:
775:
773:
608:
606:
569:
567:
544:
542:
512:
510:
497:
495:
459:
457:
446:
444:
433:
348:
311:
309:
245:
220:
191:
189:
170:
168:
97:
81:
79:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1263:
1261:
1252:
1251:
1239:
1238:
1222:goes through.
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1163:
1162:
1154:Rhododendrites
1133:
1132:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1095:Rhododendrites
1086:
1085:
1068:
1067:
1059:Rhododendrites
1042:
1041:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1008:Rhododendrites
968:
967:
964:
961:
958:
949:
948:
930:
929:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
884:Rhododendrites
854:Rhododendrites
846:
845:
837:Rhododendrites
819:
818:
810:Rhododendrites
800:Awards Circuit
785:
784:
776:Rhododendrites
770:
767:
763:
762:
758:
750:
741:
738:
727:
726:
723:
716:
705:
704:
703:
702:
672:
671:
668:
665:
662:
659:
656:
649:
648:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
609:Rhododendrites
579:
578:
570:Rhododendrites
563:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
545:Rhododendrites
532:
531:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
513:Rhododendrites
472:
471:
467:
454:
415:
414:
410:
403:
400:
393:
392:
351:Rhododendrites
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
321:
320:
312:Rhododendrites
304:
303:
302:
301:
284:
283:
279:
278:
277:
276:
258:
257:
240:
239:
223:Rhododendrites
218:
217:
216:
213:
210:
204:
192:Rhododendrites
182:
181:
171:Rhododendrites
160:
159:
158:
157:
155:External links
152:
147:
139:
138:
132:
131:
78:
73:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1262:
1250:
1247:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1227:
1221:
1214:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1184:
1180:
1174:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1156:
1149:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1121:
1115:
1114:Source review
1112:
1111:
1102:
1097:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1061:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1015:
1010:
1002:
991:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
977:
973:
965:
962:
959:
956:
955:
954:
951:
950:
947:
943:
939:
933:
928:
924:
920:
916:
913:
912:
891:
886:
877:
872:
871:
870:
866:
862:
855:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
839:
831:
827:
823:
822:
821:
820:
817:
812:
805:
801:
794:
789:
788:
787:
786:
783:
778:
771:
768:
765:
764:
759:
756:
751:
748:
742:
739:
736:
729:
728:
724:
721:
717:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
701:
697:
693:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
669:
666:
663:
660:
657:
654:
653:
651:
650:
647:
643:
639:
633:
616:
611:
603:
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
583:
582:
581:
580:
577:
572:
564:
560:
559:
552:
547:
540:
539:
536:
535:
534:
533:
528:
527:
520:
515:
508:
503:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
468:
465:
455:
452:
442:
441:
437:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
411:
408:
404:
401:
398:
397:
395:
394:
391:
387:
383:
377:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
352:
338:
334:
330:
325:
324:
323:
322:
319:
314:
306:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
285:
281:
280:
275:
271:
267:
262:
261:
260:
259:
254:
253:
249:
244:
243:
242:
241:
238:
234:
230:
224:
219:
214:
211:
207:
206:
205:
202:
201:
200:
199:
194:
185:
179:
178:
173:
164:
163:
156:
153:
151:
148:
146:
143:
142:
141:
140:
135:
130:
127:
125:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
77:
74:
71:
69:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
48:The list was
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1245:
1242:
1201:
1194:Closing note
1193:
1148:added a link
1113:
1026:
1000:
969:
952:
914:
744:
731:
673:
501:
463:
450:
416:
406:
355:
347:
186:
183:
166:
150:Citation bot
80:
49:
47:
35:
28:
470:publisher).
1225:Giants2008
1172:Giants2008
1141:Giants2008
1119:Giants2008
1004:Thanks. —
530:article...
456:Sortnames
54:Giants2008
1206:WP:FLC/ar
1200:has been
1198:candidate
1202:promoted
1196:: This
953:Comments
919:Cowlibob
876:Cowlibob
861:Cowlibob
826:this one
793:Cowlibob
715:road. :)
692:Cowlibob
675:Cowlibob
638:Cowlibob
587:Cowlibob
483:Cowlibob
436:Cowlibob
418:Cowlibob
382:Cowlibob
145:Analysis
50:promoted
1027:Support
915:Support
602:changed
443:Scopes
356:Support
137:Toolbox
100:protect
95:history
830:WP:RSN
364:Aoba47
329:Aoba47
291:Aoba47
266:Aoba47
248:Aoba47
229:Aoba47
104:delete
58:FACBot
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
1231:Talk
1178:Talk
1150:. —
1125:Talk
1079:talk
1035:talk
1001:Done
976:talk
942:talk
923:talk
865:talk
696:talk
679:talk
642:talk
591:talk
509:. —
502:Done
487:talk
464:Done
451:Done
422:talk
386:talk
368:talk
333:talk
295:talk
270:talk
233:talk
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
62:talk
56:via
1220:bot
1158:\\
1099:\\
1063:\\
1012:\\
888:\\
841:\\
814:\\
780:\\
613:\\
574:\\
549:\\
517:\\
360:FLC
316:\\
196:\\
175:\\
52:by
1234:)
1216:}}
1210:{{
1181:)
1128:)
1081:)
1037:)
978:)
944:)
925:)
867:)
698:)
681:)
644:)
593:)
505:?
489:)
424:)
388:)
370:)
335:)
297:)
272:)
235:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
70:.
64:)
33:.
1228:(
1175:(
1143::
1139:@
1122:(
1077:(
1052::
1048:@
1033:(
992::
988:@
974:(
940:(
921:(
878::
874:@
863:(
856::
852:@
795::
791:@
722:.
694:(
677:(
640:(
589:(
485:(
438::
434:@
420:(
384:(
366:(
353::
349:@
331:(
293:(
268:(
250::
246:@
231:(
225::
221:@
123:)
85:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.