Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Translate this page; This page contains changes which are not marked for translation.
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]
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

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 unless the photographer is a Commons user. (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 September 2024.
  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 September 2024.
  • 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 September 21 2024 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]] 04:20, 21 September 2024 (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
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


September 21, 2024

[edit]

September 20, 2024

[edit]

September 19, 2024

[edit]

September 18, 2024

[edit]

September 17, 2024

[edit]

September 16, 2024

[edit]

September 15, 2024

[edit]

September 14, 2024

[edit]

September 13, 2024

[edit]

September 12, 2024

[edit]

September 11, 2024

[edit]

September 10, 2024

[edit]

September 9, 2024

[edit]

September 8, 2024

[edit]

September 7, 2024

[edit]

September 6, 2024

[edit]

September 5, 2024

[edit]

September 4, 2024

[edit]

September 1, 2024

[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".


View of a balcony from the Kasbah of Bouznika

[edit]

{{../Discuss|View of a balcony from the Kasbah of Bouznika --User:Mounir Neddi 19:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)|[reply]
Your verticals are not vertical and there's a tencency to CA's (easy to correct). Furthermore the use of such high F-numbers (29!) may increase the basic DOF but reduces sharpness. And beside that it highlights dust spots (on top of the column) and demands high ISO numbers (1600) wich in turn increases chromatic noise in the dark areas. Can you fix all these effects? --PtrQs 17:30, 9 September 2024
Hi, thanks for your valuable comments. I'm not a photography expert, I didn't understand some things you mentioned. I really tried to make the photo look its best given the weather conditions I took it in. User:Mounir Neddi 12:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)}}[reply]

File:Országház_(Hungarian_Parliament_Building)(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hungarian Parliament Building (Országház) during sunset. --Lynx1211 16:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose WB is off, left one would be suitable. --PetarM 18:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The left picture was shot during daylight, this picture was shot in the golden hour before sunset. The WB looks like other sunset photos. --Lynx1211 18:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, beautiful light and I don't understand the WBremark --Michielverbeek 05:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Golden hour. Good quality. --Milseburg 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ++ per others. --Plozessor 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Basu_Bati_Courtyard_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basu Bati Courtyard. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024. --Rangan Datta Wiki 03:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Has CA everywhere --Екатерина Борисова 02:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Fenster_mit_Spinnenweben_und_Autoreifen_20240901_HOF0692-HDR_RAW-Export.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Spider webs with windows and tire, colored. --PantheraLeo1359531 11:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Chroma and luminance noise --MB-one 09:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
     Not done in a week.--Peulle 10:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --PantheraLeo1359531 06:11, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

 Support Looks good to me now. --MB-one 13:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 13:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Fisherman's bike on Manisman beach

[edit]

  • Nomination Fisherman's bike on Manisman beach in Mohammedia. --User:Mounir Neddi 13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Too bright and please, don't overcatorize, see COM:OVERCAT --Poco a poco 16:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the note, i fixed the problem.
    It's then a good habit to upload the improved version :) --Poco a poco 20:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Reach fisermans there, with SPD pedals on road bike. Fine with me, sharp, just colors could be... --Mile (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are chromatic aberrations that could do with some cleaning up.--Peulle 07:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Mile (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:D-4-71-117-12_Ortskreuz_Bischberg,_1876.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crucifix, so-called village cross, 1876, in Bischberg --Plozessor 03:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • For now  Oppose. The cross and the house wall are an unnatural yellow. The fact that it is a little crooked seems to correspond to reality. But the color would have to be corrected if the photo is to be a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: I think the colors weren't too far from reality, but I've adjusted them a bit so that now they should be realistic. --Plozessor 06:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
The image is still very yellow. Compare here; these are probably the real colors. -- Spurzem 21:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: There's no link behind your "Compare here". I think the current colors are ok, maybe you still had the old version in cache? Let's hear other opinions. --Plozessor 04:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: Sorry, I forgot to add the link. Please look here: [1] and [2]. Best regards -- Spurzem 14:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
The photo at Google StreetView is grossly overexposed, but the cross is yellowish there. It is easily possible that Tilman's photos have wrong white balance (he might just have used the house as reference). --Plozessor 03:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support May be it was the sun set. And yellow or not, it's good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:44, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo taken (according to metadata) in the winter, so with a very low sun (hence warm colors). To me, changing the white balance to pretend the photo was taken at a different time of day/year is unacceptable. Jakubhal 12:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Arc_de_Diane_in_Cahors_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arc de Diane in Cahors (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but WB is not perfect and also the arc looks distorted. Please discuss --Екатерина Борисова 01:54, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the quality could be better, and the resolution is also quite small for this camera.--Peulle 10:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is not great, 1/500 sec. and the resulting ISO800 doesn't make sense for a static subject. --Trougnouf 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 19:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Acueducto,_Segovia,_España,_2024-06-14,_DD_15.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Acueducto, Segovia, España, 2024-06-14 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 08:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please discuss. I don't find all those insect-spots or unsharp birds okay for QI. --Milseburg 14:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, those are swallows, I believe. The long exposure may not have been the right choice for this shot, as it also affects the people.--Peulle 07:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Better now. Some are left, but I stop opposing. --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Seattle,_September_7,_2024_-_316.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hills of Eternity Cemetery, Seattle --Another Believer 00:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ezarate 18:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed --Jakubhal 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal, and the perspective isn't great / should be corrected. --Trougnouf 19:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Trougnouf 19:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Новгород,_музей_«Витославлицы»_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Vitoslavlitsy Museum of Wooden Architecture, Novgorod --Vsatinet 18:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I think the tree here is rather disturbing, sorry (Мне кажется дерево портит всю композицию кадра – непонятно на что смотреть, на заслонённую церковь или на частично обрезанное дерево). --Красный 11:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Да, вы правы (Yes, you're right). --Vsatinet 17:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 14:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me also --Jakubhal 19:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --Plozessor 04:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:National_Bullriding_Championship_Finals_2024-104A3770.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flag girls entering the arena at the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds in Chico, California, at the beginning of the National Bullriding Championship Finals --Frank Schulenburg 04:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blurry and unsharp.--Peulle 11:32, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Available light action shot, good enough for an A4 size printout. --Smial 12:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A great scene whose technical limitations don't even show up on a printout. I tested it today and made an A3 color print with our large laser printer: the result is solid and suitable for print products. --Radomianin 10:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the sharpness could be better, but still very interesting photo, with quality enough for QI --Jakubhal 16:31, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 14:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:National_Bullriding_Championship_Finals_2024-104A3912.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination One of the first round contestants of the National Bullriding Championship Finals 2024, at the Silver Dollar Fairgrounds in Chico, California --Frank Schulenburg 04:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blurry and unsharp. I know capturing moving creatures like this is difficult, but even the people in the background are unsharp.--Peulle 11:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Available light acction shot, good enogh for an A4 size printout, though ISO12800 seems to be the useful limit for this camera type. --Smial 12:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Smial. I also printed this image in color on an A3 laser printer, which has more technical weaknesses, but the result is still acceptable for reproductions. --Radomianin 10:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Radomianin 14:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Euromouse at Eispalast in 2003.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ice sculpture of Euromouse at the Jungfraujoch Ice Palace in 2003 --Mike Peel 07:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Only 1 MP. --Plozessor 03:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
That was the full resolution of the camera (1.3MPix), I think 2MPix is a guideline, or can no photos from this camera be QI? Can we discuss? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
"Can no photos from this camera be QI [in the year 2024]" - Yes, that's how I see it. But let's hear other opinions. --Plozessor 06:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Btw, "Old photos" is not an adequate filename for a QI too. --Plozessor 06:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
File renamed. Let's see what others think. Thanks. Mike Peel 09:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Below minimum size requirement, I don't think it falls within the exceptions to the rule. --C messier 18:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info OK, I have a bit of info for those who may be interested: 1) Yes, this is below the minimum size requirement, which may be grounds for decline in itself. It's not absolutely set in stone, as the Guideline says that the image "should" have more than 2MP, but it's still generally regarded as a lower limit. 2) One thing that might count in its favour is that we are not judging all images according to current technical standards. If you look in the guidelines, it states that: "The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality". In other words, we can judge whether we think this image was good for 2003.--Peulle 06:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, it is a useful shot, but below the QI requirements. Oldest cameras could create a 640 x 480 shot only (0.29 MP). Should they also be assigned a QI? If we compare it with the requirements of commercial photo banks, now it is 4 MP minimum for Shutterstock etc. To print an A4 magazine cover at 300 dpi, about 8.38 MP is required. -- George Chernilevsky 06:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   -- George Chernilevsky 06:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

File:Langenlois_Kirche_Flügelaltar_Barbara_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Barbara at the winged altar of the parish church Langenlois, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 03:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough in the bottom, look to the hand --Michielverbeek 04:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough / lack of DoF. --Plozessor 05:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for an A4 size printout. Nice lighting and composition. --Smial 22:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose At the limit, but the right hand (right for the statue) isn't sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 09:39, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Fri 13 Sep → Sat 21 Sep
  • Sat 14 Sep → Sun 22 Sep
  • Sun 15 Sep → Mon 23 Sep
  • Mon 16 Sep → Tue 24 Sep
  • Tue 17 Sep → Wed 25 Sep
  • Wed 18 Sep → Thu 26 Sep
  • Thu 19 Sep → Fri 27 Sep
  • Fri 20 Sep → Sat 28 Sep
  • Sat 21 Sep → Sun 29 Sep