Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
Quality images candidates in other languages:

Deutsch | English | Español | Français | 日本語 | Polski | +/−

Skip to nominations Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

[edit] Purpose

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

[edit] Guidelines

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

[edit] For nominators

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images, more detailed criteria is available at Image guidelines.

[edit] Image page requirements
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at COM:CT.
  2. Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms.
  3. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.

[edit] Creator

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines).

[edit] Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

[edit] Resolution

Graphics located on Commons may be used not only for viewing them on a screen. They may be also used for printing or for viewing on very high resolution monitors. We can't predict what devices would be used in the future either, so it is important that pictures being nominated have a reasonably large resolution. 2 megapixels is normally the lower limit, but for 'easy to take' images, reviewers may demand more. (Not applicable for SVG images).

[edit] Image quality

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

[edit] Composition and lighting

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

[edit] Value

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia projects.

[edit] How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is frowned upon.

[edit] Evaluating images

Any registered user can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

[edit] How to review

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|1=Very short description --Nominators signature |2=Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Very short description --~~~~ |2=}}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|1=Very short description --Nominators signature |2=Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator's talk page - as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

[edit] Grace period and promotion

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

[edit] How to execute decision

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality_Images/Recently_promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

[edit] Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2009 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

[edit] Consensual review process

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

[edit] How to ask for consensual review

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.

[edit] Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page cache

[edit] Nominations

Due to changes in the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with --[[User:yourname|yourname]] 20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] July 12, 2009

[edit] July 11, 2009

[edit] July 10, 2009

[edit] July 9, 2009

[edit] July 8, 2009

[edit] July 7, 2009

[edit] July 6, 2009

[edit] July 5, 2009

[edit] July 4, 2009

[edit] July 2, 2009

[edit] July 1, 2009

[edit] June 30, 2009

[edit] Consensual review

[edit] Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Or QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision - Promoted or Not promoted - will be registered at the end of the text and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the image will stay in Consensual Review for a maximum period of 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add  Oppose and  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".

[edit] Consensual Review

[edit] File:Agia_Galini_R01.jpg

  • Nomination Agia Galini (Crete, Greece) -- MJJR 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Technically ok, but boring subject and composition. --H005 10:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Boring? Perhaps. That's a personal appreciation, which I respect. But what about informative value? Commons is about more than aesthetics only. I'd like a second opinion here, if possible... -- MJJR 20:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Focus, colors, lighting are good, let's make it a "discuss". What's the street name? Are these public or private buildings? --Iotatau 07:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Info: This image is illustrative for the typical (private) houses along the narrow, steep streets in a Cretan village built on the rocky slopes of the southern coast. For the exact location: see the geocoding. -- MJJR 15:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support --Iotatau 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically OK → QI. Lycaon 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (promote?) -- Lycaon 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Beilstein BW 0.JPG

  • Nomination Germany, Beilstein at the river Mosel, view from the Castle Metternich --Berthold Werner 15:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good panorama. --Iotatau 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry, some chromatic aberrations -- H005 10:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (more votes?) --Iotatau 20:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (2).jpg

  • Nomination Hoverfly. --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment According to the guidelines two submissions per day are ok. I now see six in a row so I stop promoting. --Iotatau 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not identified (tip: search in subfamily Syrphinae). Lycaon 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (decline?) --Iotatau 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Syrphidae sp. (by) (7).jpg

  • Nomination Syrphidae copulation --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not identified (tip: search in subfamily Syrphinae). Lycaon 07:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (decline?) --Iotatau 21:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:ComputerHotline - Diptera sp. (by) (6).jpg

  • Nomination Diptera enjoying with foam coming out of demijohn. --ComputerHotline 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not identified (Diptera??). Tip: Search in family Calliphoridae. Lycaon 07:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Identification is no criterion. --ComputerHotline 07:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose "Quality images must be categorized, have a meaningful title and description. This should include the Taxa naming for organisms." --Mbdortmund 09:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (decline?)  --Iotatau 06:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Ship_M_I_Pirogov_Vinnitsa_2006_G2.jpg

  • Nomination Vinnitsa, Ukraine. View from a bridge to the Southern Bug river. --George Chernilevsky 13:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Technically average, value for Wikimedia? -- H005 16:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment read more about en:Southern Bug value. It is a river 806 km long --George Chernilevsky 18:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO OK --Mbdortmund 01:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (more votes?) --Iotatau 20:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Kosciol sw Katarzyny w Korczewie.jpg

  • Nomination Church of St. Catherine in Korczew, Poland --Chrumps 00:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I'd say it's good, but it seems to be a little tilted to the right.--Tupungato 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good shot. I've reduced some CA, tilt, and distortion. Please review. -- Smial 10:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment For an unknown reason the thumbnail of this image and two other ones don't show up for me, on two different PCs, with two different browsers, after repeated purges and page refreshs. --Iotatau (talk) 06:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • just like here --Mbdortmund 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> (more votes?)  --Iotatau 06:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bytom - Muzeum Górnośląskie 02.jpg

  • Nomination Upper Silesian Museum in Bytom --Yarl 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Darker spots on the sky. Sensor dust, probably. It can be easily removed. I don't think it should be "quality image" with sensor spots.--Tupungato 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> (more votes?)  --Iotatau 06:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bytom - Państwowe Szkoły Budownictwa.jpg

  • Nomination Building high school in Bytom --Yarl 10:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Darker spots on the sky. Sensor dust, probably. It can be easily removed. I don't think it should be "quality image" with sensor spots.--Tupungato 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose -> (more votes?)  --Iotatau 06:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:01 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpg

  • Nomination Ovis orientalis aries Richard Bartz 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Lack of sharpness, diffuse light -- H005 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support I like it --Mbdortmund 00:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Lack of sharpness ?? Can you show me a non-oversharpened example with the same resolution please ? Richard Bartz 15:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's relevant for QI whether there aren't any better pictures, that argument is only valid for COM:VI. The sharpness of the face is excellent, just the body isn't. But my oppose is only weak, if Mbdortmund or others support it, ok. -- H005 12:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you please explain to me what do you mean with diffuse light ? Is it underexposed or overexposed ? Is direct sunlight a quality feature ? Available light and to shadow my subjects is part of my photographic style/preference. Richard Bartz 14:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it's a "portrait", as the file name says, and body sharpness is not important. Overcast light and no sun help to keep the dynamic range in check. I am not a fan of the fence in the background but overall I consider it to be a QI. --Iotatau 17:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support When background is sharp, I would change to 'oppose'; I like it this way. Sumurai8 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (promote?)  --Iotatau 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:02 Ovis orientalis aries portrait.jpg

  • Nomination Ovis orientalis aries, lambs Richard Bartz 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too low DOF, diffuse light -- H005 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Frage: Stimmt das leicht Rötliche im Fell oder ist das ein Farbstich? --Mbdortmund 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Es muß das Fell sein, sonst wäre der Rest ja auch Rotstichig. bg Richard Bartz 14:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (decline?)  --Iotatau 17:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Chainsaw.JPG

  • Nomination Chainsaw in action. (One of the first photos with my new camera.) --kallerna 17:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good. I like how you caught the sawdust. --Iotatau 17:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp, possible saw vibration result. I'm sorry, idea really great --George Chernilevsky 18:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose it is sharp but the saw is out of focus! And for wikipedia is the picture bed, because of safty reasons, don't saw in this way! HBR 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    •  Comment The saw is in focus. The motor isn't as sharp the saw, but IMO it's sharp enough. Why would it be unsafe to saw like this? --kallerna 17:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (decline?) --Iotatau 20:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Bug June 2009-5.jpg

  • Nomination A weird bug (Syromastes rhombeus) -- Alvesgaspar 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Location would be nice --Mbdortmund 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DOF is very shallow. #!George Shuklin 21:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (more votes?) --Iotatau 20:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Cygnus columbianus bewickii.JPG

  • Nomination She was sleeping, I took the picture :D Abigor 20:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good.--Mbz1 22:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed and head OOF. Lycaon 07:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much shadow --H005 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Sumurai8 20:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (more votes?)  --Iotatau 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Berlin_Central_Station_opening_(2006).jpg

  • Nomination Berlin main station opening. --Iotatau 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support I wish the hand in the lower left corner was not there, but otherwise a good image.--Mbz1 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really sharp, overexpoed, bad crop, hand in the left corner --Pro2 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exposure: check histogram, if anything the image is on average underexposed. Sharpness: the tripod was 3 m from a loudspeaker with maybe 110 dB → vibrations. But still at least as sharp as other recently promoted images. Framing/hand: tight crowd (half a million people). --Iotatau 23:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure is quite right, sharpness ok, can't see an issue with the crop. The hand is a pity, agreed, but overall a great picture. -- H005 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support as H005 -- MJJR 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Please add your vote over the QICtotal box -- Pro2 23:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Pro2 (without the overexposure). Lycaon 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (promote?) Lycaon 20:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Oberflaechenpiercing IMGP8092-2.jpg

  • Nomination piercing by Smial --Mbdortmund 20:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  weak oppose Nice quality, but small size: 1.5 Megapixels only --George Chernilevsky 21:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • the picture is strictly reduced to the important elements, it would be easy to bring it over the 2 MP by adding some unimportant elements; everything is sharp and shows good details as far as I see. I think it's acceptable --Mbdortmund 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment if promotion for 1.5 Mp possible, then i can to change my vote. Photo really nice --George Chernilevsky 13:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment The strictly reduced picture should just have a higher resolution. This is not a reason to promote undersized images, sorry. Lycaon 20:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Albeit the low resolution, everything is clear and sharp and, as the subject is very simple, the resolution is good enough to show all objects in sufficient detail. -- H005 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok, i now  Neutral. Rules can be broken in this case --George Chernilevsky 07:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support ack, H005 --EvaK 08:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose below 2 megapixels --High Contrast 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose below 2 megapixels, size mitigation is not an option on QI. Lycaon 20:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose -> (more votes?)  Lycaon (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] File:Middelgrunden wind farm 2009-07-01 edit filtered.jpg

  • Nomination Middelgrunden offshore wind farm (40 MW) on in glossy sea state --Slaunger 09:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment I spot a few spots. Lycaon 09:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for noticing. I've cloned out five spots. Hope I got'em all - gee I am surprised my sensor is already dirty. --Slaunger 10:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Very beautiful.--Mbz1 03:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • There is noise and the windmills are not straight. Estrilda 05:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • the noise could IMO be accepted because of the composition and the graphical effect but the perspective should be corrected --Mbdortmund 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per author's remark. Lycaon 21:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment If skewness (horizon, poles) is removed, I'll support it. -- H005 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd like to support this if there was dust removal, less skewness and less JPG compression and therefore less artefacts and noise. --EvaK 09:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose -> (more votes?) George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC) 

[edit] File:Fly and bug June 2009-1.jpg

  • Nomination A fly and a bug preparing to take off -- Alvesgaspar 23:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support nice --Mbdortmund 09:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose seams blurry in full resolution --LC-de 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Pretty good and interesting. --Muhammad Mahdi Karim 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very small DOF, not QI :-(. Nice composition. --George Chernilevsky 06:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support very interesting composition. i think it would be hard to get it sharper by that size of objects-LadyofHats 09:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - per George Chernilevsky -- Pro2 11:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support Difficult case. But I think on balance that the lack of depth of field is mitigated by the fact that there is little alternative. Very difficult to persuade two bugs to not move at all while you take multiple exposures to do focus stacking. --Tony Wills 11:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not a good depth. --Estrilda 05:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support nice --ComputerHotline 08:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  •  Support DOF is ok in my opinion. I like the composition. --High Contrast 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose -> (promote?) --Iotatau 20:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

Sat 04 Jul → Sun 12 Jul
Sun 05 Jul → Mon 13 Jul
Mon 06 Jul → Tue 14 Jul
Tue 07 Jul → Wed 15 Jul
Wed 08 Jul → Thu 16 Jul
Thu 09 Jul → Fri 17 Jul
Fri 10 Jul → Sat 18 Jul
Sat 11 Jul → Sun 19 Jul
Sun 12 Jul → Mon 20 Jul
Personal tools