583:. Sure, it's got a publisher and an ISBN, but I don't see the editorial oversight that's required of a WP:RS. It's a collection of essays. The forward says (page 25 in the ebook edition I have) "The book ... contains more than sixty essays or statements by people who participated". In the introduction (page 52), the author says, "When deciding what to write about, each contributor made his and her own decisions ... While I cannot agree with everything contained in what follows ... there is nothing of import presented here that I know to be egregiously in error." So, it's a collection of first-person recollections. An interesting and valuable piece of literature, but not the kind of
1170:) is that somebody other than me needs to do the review. To be honest, I'm finding this whole thing kind of frustrating. This has been a problematic article for a long time. The article history is witness to how much crap has been added to the article over the years. I went through a few iterations of cleaning it up, and much the same crap was added back. I was rather surprised to see it pass what was clearly a defective GA review. I cleaned up the things I found, but it needs a clean review by a disinterested reviewer. I am sorry that DYK's workflow is being inconvenienced by this, but that's really not a factor in a GA review. --
579:. First, there's no page number so it's hard to verify a single fact from a 500+ page book. I got a copy of the book from the library and eventually found what I assume is the passage being referred to on page 350. It talks about the phone lines being tapped, but doesn't say anything about the tunnels being used. Moreover, I'm not even sure the book ranks as a
1152:, to clarify, are we waiting on some other reviewers to leave feedback, or are we waiting for the items you listed to be resolved? I can take a greater look at the article myself, maybe even add some things, but then I would have to recuse as a reviewer. Or I can just place my concerns here and let the original nominator or others resolve the issues. –
839:
If I may be so bold, you seem to have a vested interest in getting this to happen, which puzzles me. What would be useful is working on fixing the problems I found. To be honest, I don't think this got a very good review the first time around, so we shouldn't be short-changing the second review. --
444:
I am not able to throw myself wholeheartedly into this discussion, as I am suffering from some physical health issues as well as personal business that prevent me from spending extensive amounts of time on-Wiki. I will note that the presence of an image is not a GA requirement, and so removal of the
256:
In DYK I was not high on the image based on the visual difficulty/intricacy. It seems Roy Smith has discovered that the image is not properly licensed and so should be removed. The article itself could be reviewed for GA without the image, but it seems Roy Smith has also found other GA deficiencies.
1275:
There's also not that much explanation about how the buildings are related. Granted, the map did alleviate that issue, and I know where the buildings are, but most people would not. Even if the map were included, an in-text description of where the buildings are in relation to the campus would help
538:
If that is the primary issue, then the question is whether simply removing the map would degrade the quality of the article so much as to fail one of the GA criteria. If it doesn't, then it may not hurt to remove the map if it violates WP:IMAGEOR, and a new map that complies with that policy can be
1210:
agreed, and that only gets worse for GAR—no glory in heavy-duty maintenance work like this. at least GA reviewers get some satisfaction of assisting in the designation of a new GA. It's the difference between cutting the ribbon on a new highway and actually spending the necessary money to maintain
1118:
I don't understand. You were the one who started this GAR so it would be expected that you would be the one who would state if your original concerns have been addressed or not. As far as I can tell you haven't asked anyone to give a second review so far (please correct me if I'm wrong) so I don't
151:
for that. The caption includes, "Information gathered over the course of many expeditions by many people". Who, exactly? The source cited for the image caption is the
Columbia Spectator, which I would consider a WP:RS for some things, but the cited article is, as far as I can tell, a letter from a
1182:
PS, I share your frustration with how long GA reviews take. I've currently got something in the review queue that's been there for over two months, and it looks like it's going to be another 3 months before it gets to the top of the queue. It is unfortunate that GA doesn't have enough qualified
557:
It's not the image per-se that's the OR, it's the information it conveys. The paths of tunnels are traced out. Where did those paths come from? I'm fine with somebody redrawing a map to enhance aspects of it, or to avoid copyright issues. But, we need to know where the information came from.
1315:: I thought I'd have time to address the issues, but I'm not finding any space/energy for it. Doesn't look like others are able to address the problems raised by epicgenius and roysmith, either. Let's delist; the next person to come along and try and get this to GA can use this as a guide.
331:(the version of the map in that article is also the one that Schiraldi uploaded I think). No idea how reliable that source is, but it could be used to explain that this is a claimed map of the tunnel system, without circular referencing as the map seems older than Knowledge. —
929:
The thing is, the longer this GAR takes, the longer the DYK nomination takes as well. It would likely come to a point where the nomination may have to be closed for staleness. We're trying to cut the DYK backlog and seeing this GAR move forward would help in addressing that.
188:
as DYK reviewer and GA reviewer—The map appears to have been uploaded by someone under the username "Mike
Schiraldi", so my guess is that Schiraldi decided to recreate their old map and upload it to wikipedia, where no one ever thought to check whether it was the original.
345:
In any case, another question is whether the article could just be GA without the image. That would separate the "reliability of the map" question from the "should this be a GA" question, and we could just remove the image until this is cleared up.
863:
absent information to justify this specific image's inclusion, I've removed it. If we ever uncover new information that allows us to redraw/re-add the map, we can always do so. In the meantime, we should probably see what else we can address.
152:
student, so there's no real editorial oversight. And it doesn't even include the map itself, just a mention that "a highly circulated map was compiled (credited to one Mike
Schiraldi)". That's not the kind of WP:RS on which GA is founded.
1261:
The lead fails to provide an adequate summary of the sections encompassed by the body. Actually, it's only three sentences long, which is approximately one sentence for each section. My recommendation is at least two paragraphs of 3-4
1195:
I understand. Yeah, it's frustrating that the GA backlog is growing again and that there's not enough reviewers to address the issues. I can leave some comments here in a bit so the original nominator or other editors can fix them. –
1271:
I noticed that, in general, there doesn't really seem to be a description of the network. E.g. which buildings are known to be connected by tunnels. If appropriate, the number of buildings or the approximate length can be
419:
I fully agree that we seem to have no reliable source for "this map shows what the tunnel system looks like". There may be sources for something much weaker like "this is a widely distributed map of rumored tunnels".
535:
Original images created by a
Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research"
1119:
understand why you are saying "it will be reviewed when somebody reviews it". I was no longer even talking about the DYK review but rather this GAR itself since I noticed it's been stuck for a while.
886:
I don't really have a vested interest in this article, it's more that its DYK nomination is one of the oldest currently active and it would be really nice if it could move forward sooner or later.
1283:. Here, you would not know that the Morningside campus is bisected by 116th Street, or that it was even split by that street in the first place, unless you knew about the campus already.
810:
Would simply removing the map, as suggested by other editors above, resolve the issues and allow the nomination to be passed once the "some additional items" issues are addressed?
69:
663:
The oldest section, connecting Buell Hall and St. Paul's Chapel, was built prior to
Columbia University's 1896 move to its current Morningside Heights campus in Manhattan...
569:
in the DYK nomination. Overall, I don't get warm and fuzzy feelings that due diligence has been performed in the rush to approve a fun story about contemporary culture.
65:
50:
485:
I also wish you well. Please take care of your health before you worry about minor things like wikipedia articles. Your health really is the important thing. --
746:
Have all the concerns been addressed? I noticed that the DYK nomination hasn't had a comment in almost a month and the nominator hasn't edited since
January.
1286:
Also, the history doesn't talk a lot about the construction of the tunnels. Even if they were built in secret, I'd hope there would be some coverage on that.
42:
155:
I agree that the article is in far better shape as far as sourcing goes than when I performed major surgery on it back in
September. But the map is still
1293:. And in a related vein, describing some key terms (e.g. describing the Manhattan Project as a program for nuclear development) would help readers a lot.
1106:
I'm not sure how else to put this, but please stop pestering me. The article needs to be reviewed. It will be reviewed when somebody reviews it. --
329:
587:
on which we should be basing factual statements, especially considering that the factual statements we make aren't even supported by the source. --
1139:
1093:
1057:
950:
906:
830:
766:
565:
The issue with the map is what got me interested in this, but the more I dig, the more problems I find. Some of them I've enumerated below. I
1324:
1220:
979:
873:
626:, but the citations do not include page number references. There's no way to verify a statement from a 500 page book without a page reference.
506:
376:
228:
198:
631:
Before 1954, when the government of New York City gave
Columbia permission to close off the portion of 116th Street that ran across its campus
1257:
As mentioned above, I've come up with some comments for this page. Unfortunately, I did notice some deficiencies in coverage. For instance:
90:
17:
1332:
1306:
1228:
1205:
1190:
1177:
1161:
1143:
1113:
1097:
1061:
1025:
987:
954:
924:
910:
881:
847:
834:
798:
770:
728:
702:
690:
672:
654:
640:
606:
594:
548:
514:
492:
480:
458:
429:
414:
398:
384:
355:
340:
315:
286:
266:
236:
206:
170:
117:
665:
says nothing about Buell Hall or St. Paul's Chapel, nor does it say anything about when
Columbia moved to the current campus. --
1037:
In any case, now that the images have been removed, apart from the asof templates, does anything else need to be resolved first?
58:
445:
map would not be disqualifying unless RoySmith has found extensive other issues that cannot be repaired in a timely fashion. —
645:
It was actually in 1953 that the street was closed (though the new walkway may have been completed in 1954). I've fixed that.
128:. I noted this on the article's talk page and explained my reasoning a few months ago, and removed the image from the page
106:
915:
The goal of this review is to ensure that the article meets GA standards. DYK's publication schedule is not a factor.
1135:
1089:
1053:
946:
902:
826:
762:
35:
1320:
1216:
975:
869:
502:
372:
224:
194:
920:
367:
Looks to me like the map was uploaded on 2005 June 8, and the link you've supplied is from 2013 September 17.
566:
558:
This is "based on the original map by Mike
Schiraldi". So, where do we find the original map if we want to
137:
129:
1120:
1103:
1074:
1038:
970:
a friendly reminder that talking about how fast a process should go does not, in fact, make it go faster.
961:
931:
887:
858:
811:
776:
747:
577:
student staff at WKCR, Columbia's radio station, used the tunnels to tap the university's telephone system
779:
The short answer to your question is, "no". My core concern was the map, which is still there, is still
1316:
1212:
971:
865:
498:
368:
251:
220:
190:
1302:
1201:
1157:
916:
686:
650:
544:
452:
1268:- Might want to clarify that it's the Morningside Heights campus as opposed to, say, Manhattanville.
407:. Something doesn't become reliable just because enough wikis have copied it from each other. --
1187:
1174:
1110:
1022:
844:
795:
725:
699:
669:
637:
603:
591:
489:
411:
283:
167:
530:
476:
311:
262:
711:
In many places, the current status of tunnels is noted. These all should be qualified with
102:
1347:
1298:
1197:
1153:
682:
646:
554:
540:
466:
447:
425:
394:
351:
336:
247:
183:
715:
147:
The map is described as "Based on the original map by Mike Schiraldi". But there is no
133:
1341:
1328:
1224:
1184:
1171:
1167:
1149:
1107:
1068:
1032:
1019:
1012:
983:
965:
877:
854:
841:
805:
792:
741:
722:
696:
666:
634:
600:
588:
526:
510:
486:
408:
380:
301:
280:
243:
232:
202:
164:
1281:
In 1953, Columbia closed off the portion of 116th Street that ran across its campus
788:
780:
623:
584:
580:
472:
404:
307:
272:
258:
216:
179:
156:
148:
681:
yet fixed the part about the passageway between Buell Hall and St. Paul's Chapel.
215:
cared about this map enough to impersonate Schiraldi—but not enough to care about
784:
559:
497:
thirded, we'll all be here whenever you're ready to come back :) you come first
276:
160:
141:
125:
111:
421:
390:
362:
347:
332:
1276:
immensely, especially for those who have never visited the campus before.
622:
There's a number of places where books are cited. They all appear to be
677:
I have added a cite for the 1896 campus dedication. However, I have
1289:
Time periods or years could be added for some statements, such as
562:
the contents. The ability to verify information is a core policy.
389:
As I said, it depends on whether we believe what that link says. —
328:
There is at least one place that describes the map as reliable:
721:
templates, noting the date of the corroborating reference. --
1166:
My understanding of the process ("Community reassessment" at
271:
This has nothing to do with licensing. It was to do with
633:
doesn't say anything which supports that statement. --
85:
77:
46:
599:I have removed the statement and its citation. --
1279:The above point also applies to statements like
1018:in the two place that appeared to need them. --
163:, so should have been disqualifying for GA. --
1073:Re-ping due to a typo in my previous comment.
8:
124:My main concern is that the map image fails
403:This is why we have rules for what makes a
529:, I happened to notice this just now. Per
140:with no better sourcing. It still fails
1290:
1280:
1265:
1211:it. It is, to use the cliché, unsexy.
662:
630:
576:
539:created instead. Just my two cents. –
534:
7:
695:I removed the offending passage. --
18:Knowledge:Good article reassessment
24:
86:Watch article reassessment page
567:found and raised another issue
1:
691:00:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
655:00:36, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
595:18:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
549:17:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
515:02:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
493:00:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
481:00:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
430:10:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
316:00:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
1291:during the Manhattan Project
729:23:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
673:23:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
641:22:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
573:A Time to Stir: Columbia '68
459:22:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
415:22:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
399:22:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
385:22:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
356:22:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
341:22:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
287:21:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
267:21:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
237:21:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
207:21:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
171:21:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
575:is used as a reference for
306:Thank you for the message.
28:Columbia University tunnels
1364:
1307:00:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
1229:21:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1206:14:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1191:14:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1178:14:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1162:13:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1144:13:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1114:13:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1098:09:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1062:09:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
1026:01:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
988:23:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
955:22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
925:12:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
911:02:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
882:01:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
848:00:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
703:01:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
607:01:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
1333:21:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
835:23:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
799:15:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
771:10:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
211:either that, or someone
118:18:00, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
1253:Comments by Epicgenius
463:I am sorry to hear it
1266:underneath its campus
787:because there are no
617:Some additional items
136:restored the image
91:Most recent review
1104:Narutolovehinata5
962:Narutolovehinata5
859:Narutolovehinata5
777:Narutolovehinata5
629:The citation for
1355:
1317:theleekycauldron
1213:theleekycauldron
1130:
1127:
1124:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1072:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1036:
1017:
1011:
972:theleekycauldron
969:
941:
938:
935:
897:
894:
891:
866:theleekycauldron
862:
821:
818:
815:
809:
783:and still fails
757:
754:
751:
745:
720:
714:
499:theleekycauldron
470:
455:
450:
369:theleekycauldron
366:
305:
255:
252:Theleekycauldron
221:theleekycauldron
191:theleekycauldron
187:
114:
100:
88:
82:
73:
54:
1363:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1338:
1337:
1255:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1082:
1079:
1076:
1066:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1030:
1015:
1009:
959:
939:
936:
933:
917:RoySmith-Mobile
895:
892:
889:
852:
819:
816:
813:
803:
755:
752:
749:
739:
718:
712:
619:
464:
453:
448:
360:
299:
241:
177:
112:
95:
84:
63:
40:
34:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1361:
1359:
1351:
1350:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1295:
1294:
1287:
1284:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1263:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1183:reviewers. --
1146:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
884:
732:
731:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
659:
658:
657:
627:
618:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
570:
563:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
358:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
292:
291:
290:
289:
209:
122:
121:
120:
93:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1360:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1343:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1252:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1189:
1186:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1140:contributions
1137:
1133:
1132:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1094:contributions
1091:
1087:
1086:
1070:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1058:contributions
1055:
1051:
1050:
1034:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1014:
1008:I have added
1007:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
967:
963:
958:
957:
956:
952:
951:contributions
948:
944:
943:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
914:
913:
912:
908:
907:contributions
904:
900:
899:
885:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
860:
856:
851:
850:
849:
846:
843:
838:
837:
836:
832:
831:contributions
828:
824:
823:
807:
802:
801:
800:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
768:
767:contributions
764:
760:
759:
743:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
730:
727:
724:
717:
710:
704:
701:
698:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
680:
676:
675:
674:
671:
668:
664:
661:The cite for
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
643:
642:
639:
636:
632:
628:
625:
621:
620:
616:
608:
605:
602:
598:
597:
596:
593:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
568:
564:
561:
556:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
537:
532:
528:
524:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
495:
494:
491:
488:
484:
483:
482:
478:
474:
468:
462:
461:
460:
457:
456:
451:
443:
442:
431:
427:
423:
418:
417:
416:
413:
410:
406:
402:
401:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
364:
359:
357:
353:
349:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
327:
326:
317:
313:
309:
303:
298:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
288:
285:
282:
278:
277:verifiability
274:
270:
269:
268:
264:
260:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
185:
181:
175:
174:
173:
172:
169:
166:
162:
158:
153:
150:
145:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
119:
116:
115:
108:
104:
98:
94:
92:
87:
81:
80:
76:
71:
67:
62:
61:
57:
52:
48:
44:
39:
38:
33:
32:
29:
26:
19:
1312:
1296:
1256:
1121:
1075:
1039:
932:
888:
812:
748:
678:
572:
471:. Get well!
446:
212:
154:
146:
130:in this edit
123:
110:
96:
78:
74:
60:Article talk
59:
55:
36:
27:
47:visual edit
1299:Epicgenius
1262:sentences.
1198:Epicgenius
1154:Epicgenius
683:Epicgenius
647:Epicgenius
555:Epicgenius
541:Epicgenius
531:WP:IMAGEOR
467:GhostRiver
248:GhostRiver
184:GhostRiver
159:and fails
134:Normsupon
1342:Category
1325:contribs
1221:contribs
1185:RoySmith
1172:RoySmith
1150:RoySmith
1108:RoySmith
1069:RoySmith
1033:RoySmith
1020:RoySmith
980:contribs
966:RoySmith
874:contribs
855:RoySmith
842:RoySmith
806:RoySmith
793:RoySmith
742:RoySmith
723:RoySmith
697:RoySmith
667:RoySmith
635:RoySmith
601:RoySmith
589:RoySmith
527:RoySmith
507:contribs
487:RoySmith
409:RoySmith
377:contribs
302:RoySmith
281:RoySmith
273:sourcing
244:RoySmith
229:contribs
199:contribs
176:Pinging
165:RoySmith
99:: Delist
1327:) (she/
1223:) (she/
982:) (she/
876:) (she/
536:policy.
509:) (she/
473:Bruxton
379:) (she/
308:Bruxton
259:Bruxton
250:, and
231:) (she/
201:) (she/
180:Bruxton
70:history
51:history
37:Article
1348:GAR/67
1313:Delist
1272:added.
1188:(talk)
1175:(talk)
1168:WP:GAR
1129:hinata
1123:Naruto
1111:(talk)
1083:hinata
1077:Naruto
1047:hinata
1041:Naruto
1023:(talk)
940:hinata
934:Naruto
896:hinata
890:Naruto
845:(talk)
820:hinata
814:Naruto
796:(talk)
756:hinata
750:Naruto
726:(talk)
700:(talk)
670:(talk)
638:(talk)
604:(talk)
592:(talk)
560:verify
490:(talk)
412:(talk)
284:(talk)
213:really
168:(talk)
113:buidhe
97:Result
791:. --
789:WP:RS
781:WP:OR
716:as of
624:WP:RS
585:WP:RS
581:WP:RS
454:River
449:Ghost
422:Kusma
405:WP:RS
391:Kusma
363:Kusma
348:Kusma
333:Kusma
279:. --
217:WP:OR
157:WP:OR
149:WP:RS
79:Watch
16:<
1329:they
1321:talk
1303:talk
1225:they
1217:talk
1202:talk
1158:talk
1136:talk
1126:love
1090:talk
1080:love
1054:talk
1044:love
1013:asof
984:they
976:talk
964:and
947:talk
937:love
921:talk
903:talk
893:love
878:they
870:talk
857:and
827:talk
817:love
785:WP:V
763:talk
753:love
687:talk
651:talk
545:talk
511:they
503:talk
477:talk
426:talk
395:talk
381:they
373:talk
352:talk
337:talk
312:talk
275:and
263:talk
233:they
225:talk
203:they
195:talk
182:and
161:WP:V
142:WP:V
138:here
126:WP:V
66:edit
43:edit
679:not
219::)
132:.
1344::
1331:)
1323:•
1305:)
1297:–
1227:)
1219:•
1204:)
1160:)
1142:)
1138:·
1096:)
1092:·
1060:)
1056:·
1016:}}
1010:{{
986:)
978:•
953:)
949:·
923:)
909:)
905:·
880:)
872:•
833:)
829:·
769:)
765:·
719:}}
713:{{
689:)
653:)
547:)
533:,
513:)
505:•
479:)
428:)
397:)
383:)
375:•
354:)
339:)
314:)
265:)
246:,
235:)
227:•
205:)
197:•
144:.
109:)
105:·
89:•
83:•
68:|
49:|
45:|
1319:(
1301:(
1215:(
1200:(
1156:(
1148:@
1134:(
1131:5
1102:@
1088:(
1085:5
1071::
1067:@
1052:(
1049:5
1035::
1031:@
974:(
968::
960:@
945:(
942:5
919:(
901:(
898:5
868:(
861::
853:@
825:(
822:5
808::
804:@
775:@
761:(
758:5
744::
740:@
685:(
649:(
553:@
543:(
525:@
501:(
475:(
469::
465:@
424:(
420:—
393:(
371:(
365::
361:@
350:(
346:—
335:(
310:(
304::
300:@
261:(
254::
242:@
223:(
193:(
186::
178:@
107:c
103:t
101:(
75:·
72:)
64:(
56:·
53:)
41:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.