Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:QIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut
Skip to nominations

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. This is not the same thing as featured pictures. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Purpose[edit]

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.


Guidelines[edit]

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators[edit]

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

Image page requirements[edit]
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. 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.
Creator[edit]

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). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Technical requirements[edit]

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Image quality[edit]

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable 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.

Composition and lighting[edit]

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.

Value[edit]

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

How to nominate[edit]

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

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

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below:

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations[edit]

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluating images[edit]

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review[edit]

How to update the status

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|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |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|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |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.

Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first 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.

How to execute decision[edit]

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 consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2023.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 2023.
  • 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

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)[edit]

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 November 25 2023 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process[edit]

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.

How to ask for consensual review[edit]

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 cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules[edit]

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 10:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms


November 25, 2023[edit]

November 24, 2023[edit]

November 23, 2023[edit]

November 22, 2023[edit]

November 21, 2023[edit]

November 20, 2023[edit]

November 19, 2023[edit]

November 18, 2023[edit]

November 17, 2023[edit]

November 16, 2023[edit]

November 15, 2023[edit]

November 14, 2023[edit]

November 13, 2023[edit]

November 12, 2023[edit]

November 10, 2023[edit]

November 9, 2023[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. Our 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 will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} 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 nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 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".



File:Hohenschwangau_Castle_09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hohenschwangau Castle, Hohenschwangau, Ostallgäu, Bavaria, Germany --Llez 06:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Technical quality is good, except for the really unbalanced composition (too much uninteresting sky, too little building). Since I suspect, that this isn't fixable, I'm afraid, I have to decline. Feel free to ask for more opinions though. --MB-one 13:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think there is too much sky. Reduce the sky would mean, to leave only little room above the top of the poles or even cut them off ("Let the poor thing breathe", as a wikipedia said several times some time ago). Please discuss. --Llez 18:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Too much sky: No. Too little building: Yes, though that could be tolerated. However, the picture is blurry (probably from camera movement), the swan is not even sharp at 4 MP. With the combination of questionable composition and borderline sharpness, does probably not make a QI. --Plozessor 06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose How many QIs can we tolerate from same viewpoint and time? C'mon, pick the best and nominate that one, not the whole bunch. --Kallerna 10:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Jointless bridge, Maker Faire, Berlin (BL7C0225).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jointless wooden bridge after Leonardo Da Vinci at Maker Faire Berlin 2018 --MB-one 17:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Weak support Picture and description ok, please give it a better name. --Plozessor 06:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distracting background with the chair. --Kallerna 06:34, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Weisshorngruppe_in_den_Wolken.jpg_[edit]

  • Nomination The mountain range around the Weisshorn in the clouds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite low resolution and not very much detail. Loss of quality to the left edge. --Milseburg 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment It looks like it is a crop from a single frame, not a sticthed panorama, and as such it isn't downsized. --C messier 06:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Just about ok, but could benefit from increasing clarity. Currently it's quite pale. --Plozessor 05:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shorter edge of a panorama shot should have at least about 2000 pixels. Also somewhat overexposed. --Smial 11:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment The image guidelines mention 800 px, not 2000. Also, this isn't a panorama made of multible photos but a single photo. --C messier 17:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Looks o.k. to me, even though the low clouds obscure some parts. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Toronto,_November_13,_2023_-_060.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toronto Inukshuk Park, Ontario --Another Believer 13:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted in ccw direction and needs a pespective correction --Poco a poco 20:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Of boderline overall quality, but would need at least perspective/angle correction. --Plozessor 05:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, I see no tilting buildings. -- Spurzem 16:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment And I see no straight building. Check alone the TV tower. --Plozessor 18:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Needs PC. --Tagooty 03:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Tagooty 03:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Toronto,_November_13,_2023_-_061.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toronto Inukshuk Park, Ontario --Another Believer 13:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Túllio F 15:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is no detail here, lacks perspective correction --Poco a poco 20:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco --Plozessor 05:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco --Jakubhal 05:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I see a good image. -- Spurzem 16:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • If this image is a QI, let's give the QI stamp to all noms here. Come on Poco a poco 21:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco --Tagooty 03:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Tagooty 03:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:D-4-71-174-96_Wohnhaus_(Hauptgebäude_1723),_Zaugendorfer_Straße_9,_Mürsbach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Timber-framed house from 1723 in Mürsbach --Plozessor 06:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  CommentThe blurred person should be cloned out or left sharp with a personal rights template. --Ermell 06:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per my understanding of German law, I'm not allowed to upload a picture of that person with the face visible, and that can't be bypassed by adding a template. Unfortunately I also don't have enough material to clone him out professionally. --Plozessor 07:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI with the blurry person. Sorry. --Ermell 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded a new version with only the actual face (not the whole person) blurred. Would like to discuss this to clarify how blurred faces, license plates and other privacy-related modifications are viewed in the context of QI. --Plozessor 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The old gentleman would probably be sad if he saw himself sitting there with his blurry face. It would also be nice if his feet were in the picture too. -- Spurzem 16:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Could be, but as said, per German law I'm not allowed to show his face without his consent. No QI then ... --Plozessor 18:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Catedral,_Norwich,_Inglaterra,_2022-11-19,_DD_60-62_HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cathedral, Norwich, England --Poco a poco 18:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Main focus to dark --Kiwiz1338 11:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by that? I don't think it was too dark, but still brightened it a bit. No reason to directly oppose IMHO Poco a poco 20:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I ask for CR before the bot sweeps away this nom --Poco a poco 20:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed the lower part seems to dark, while the upper part is not really sharp. Would benefit from brightening the shadows. --Plozessor 05:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The exposure is fine to me. The signs on left and right and the cross on the top are blurry. Fixable by sharpening, or better HDR processing? --Tagooty 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded one more version with additional sharpening in the areas mentioned by Tagooty. I cannot believe that I have to apply additional brigthness. The photo was taken around sunset. Btw, the image has over 30 MPx Poco a poco 19:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sorry, there is not much improvement. --Tagooty 03:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Soos_2015_08.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Císařský pramen in the nature reserve Soos in Czechia --Kritzolina 20:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp even at low resolution --Plozessor 06:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems adequate to me as a photo of part of a mineral spring. It's OK for a photo of running water not to look crystalline and for part of the picture to be less sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 20:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --C messier 17:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --C messier 17:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Interboot_2023,_Friedrichshafen_(P1130077).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Demonstration of a jet-propelled surfboard on Messesee Friedrichshafen --MB-one 16:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Tilted CCW (check background), needs better file description and personality rights tag. --C messier 20:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Changed to weak support because of the filename / missing template issue. Picture itself is IMHO ok as the focus is on the person, not on the (indeed slightly underexposed) background. --Plozessor 16:38, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Given that the issues I mentioned haven't been corrected, I send this to discuss. --C messier 19:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
    •  Support OK after the new version. --C messier 17:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. --Kallerna 07:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done applied perspective correction and increased exposure. Thanks for the reviews. --MB-one 18:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel 19:15, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Breaker_Bay,_Wellington_seen_from_Ataturk_Memorial_Park.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Breaker Bay, Wellington seen from Ataturk Memorial Park.
    --Kiwiz1338 05:42, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Weak support Somehow overprocessed smartphone picture, but good at 5 MP. --Plozessor 06:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too many artifacts and too blurry IMO. --Ermell 06:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell, far from QI in the original resolution.--Milseburg 10:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks pretty good at 30%, but not a QI at 50% per Ermell, which I think is a very fair basis for judgment (full resolution is huge). -- Ikan Kekek 21:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 Question What is the consensus here? In other discussions it was something like "it must be ok for an A4 size print [which is roughly 3 to 4 MP]", you say must be good "at 50 % of the full resolution" ... so a 4 MP picture is QI if it is ok at 50 %, while a 40 MP picture is not QI if it is ok at 30 %? --Plozessor 16:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think there is a complete consensus; CR wouldn't be needed if there was. I think borderline images have to be judged individually, and it's not an exact science, so some reviewers might support and others won't. We'll just have to muddle through and see the results on each image.--Peulle 08:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
  • To me review size is full resolution. Images showing off with a high resolution should not be rated more leniently in detail than images coming out of cameras with significantly smaller pixel reserve. --Milseburg 14:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 21:03, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Hyundai_Ioniq_5_N_Auto_Zuerich_2023_1X7A0965.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hyundai Ioniq 5 N at Auto Zuerich 2023.--Alexander-93 20:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --ArildV 08:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose A relatively large part of the panels appears clipped/overexposed. --C messier 20:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
     Weak oppose Indeed the shadows are too dark, that could probably be fixed though. --Plozessor 05:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Strong contrast but plausible and acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 21:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It looks good to me, minimal reflections, very good for an indoor photograph. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per C messier --Sandro Halank 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Sandro Halank 12:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Museo_Británico,_Londres,_Inglaterra,_2022-11-26,_DD_57-59_HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination British Museum, London, England --Poco a poco 07:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    The people at the bottom left look heavily distorted. Possible to fix the distortion or crop them out? --ThibautRe 18:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ New version --Poco a poco 21:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
    Slightly greenish? --ArildV 09:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ New version --Poco a poco 19:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support New version is fine for me. --ArildV 19:55, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Seems too green tinted? --Jay.Jarosz 03:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose There's very slight green tint (the white part of the sign is #6f7d71), but it's more the overall darkness, lack of sharpness and the perspective distortion (right side is leaning inwards) that concerns me. --Plozessor 06:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. Slightly better now. --Kallerna 20:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version with adjusted crop, perspective, brightness and WB Poco a poco 11:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, plausible mostly natural light in overcast London. -- Ikan Kekek 21:13, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan.--Ermell 23:38, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jay.Jarosz, Plozessor, and Kallerna: May I ask you for a new review of the image? Poco a poco 20:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality given the circumstances. --Tagooty 03:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Fri 17 Nov → Sat 25 Nov
  • Sat 18 Nov → Sun 26 Nov
  • Sun 19 Nov → Mon 27 Nov
  • Mon 20 Nov → Tue 28 Nov
  • Tue 21 Nov → Wed 29 Nov
  • Wed 22 Nov → Thu 30 Nov
  • Thu 23 Nov → Fri 01 Dec
  • Fri 24 Nov → Sat 02 Dec
  • Sat 25 Nov → Sun 03 Dec