diff --git a/Manuscript/QUEST_WIREs.tex b/Manuscript/QUEST_WIREs.tex
index 2946376..8d7e625 100644
--- a/Manuscript/QUEST_WIREs.tex
+++ b/Manuscript/QUEST_WIREs.tex
@@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ like absorption, fluorescence, phosphorescence or even chemoluminescence \cite{B
 For a given level of theory, ground-state methods are usually more accurate than their excited-state analogs.
 The reasons behind this are (at least) threefold: i) one might lack a proper variational principle for excited-state energies and one may have to rely on response theory
  \cite{Monkhorst_1977,Helgaker_1989,Koch_1990,Koch_1990b,Christiansen_1995b,Christiansen_1998b,Hattig_2003,Kallay_2004,Hattig_2005c} formalisms which inherently introduce a 
- ground-state ``bias'', iii) accurately modeling the electronic structure of excited states usually requires larger one-electron basis sets (including diffuse functions most of the times) than their 
+ ground-state ``bias'', ii) accurately modeling the electronic structure of excited states usually requires larger one-electron basis sets (including diffuse functions most of the times) than their 
  ground-state counterpart, and iii) excited states can be governed by different amounts of dynamic/static correlations, present very different physical natures ($\pi \to \pis$, $n \to \pis$, charge 
  transfer, double excitation, valence, Rydberg, singlet, doublet, triplet, etc), yet be very close in energy from one  another. Hence, designing excited-state methods able to tackle simultaneously 
  and on an equal footing all these types of excited states at an affordable cost remain an open challenge in theoretical computational chemistry as evidenced by the large number of review