WWWTP? C'mon, TIME Magazine!

Update, 18:00 GMT - TIME has removed the stock photo,  fixed the strange "Period Table" language, and appended a correction. Kudos to the editorial staff for fast turnaround.

You can't go anywhere on the Internet today without hearing the clamor surrounding newly-confirmed element 115. Fantastic achievement, and another stepping stone towards the long-predicted "island of stability" - super-heavy atoms rumored to have longer lifetimes and higher stability (somewhere north of 118).

But the reporting surrounding the feat? A little less excellent.

Take, for example, this snippet from TIME's Science & Space desk. It hits all the high points, culling quotes from Lund's press release and explaining in plain English how the element came to be. But there's two glaring errors in the first inch of column!

Source: Time.com

1. Where on Earth did that stock photo come from? And who vetted it? First, no one uses the term "Joliotium" for Element 105 anymore; that's been Dubnium since 1997. Even when Joliotium was in play, no one abbreviated it as "Ji" (they used Jl). And Rutherfordium (Rf) isn't 106, but 104. 106 honors Glenn Seaborg, and shortens to Sg.

2. I've never heard the Periodic Table called the "Period Table" before. Are we describing atoms and elements, or 18th-century furniture?

C'mon, TIME, you can do better than this!