Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 December 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 December 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 December 14 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]] 10:39, 14 December 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

December 14, 2023[edit]

December 13, 2023[edit]

December 12, 2023[edit]

December 11, 2023[edit]

December 10, 2023[edit]

December 9, 2023[edit]

December 8, 2023[edit]

December 7, 2023[edit]

December 6, 2023[edit]

December 5, 2023[edit]

December 4, 2023[edit]

December 3, 2023[edit]

December 2, 2023[edit]

December 1, 2023[edit]

November 30, 2023[edit]

November 29, 2023[edit]

November 27, 2023[edit]

November 23, 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:Parroquia_de_San_Jorge,_Wasserburg,_Alemania,_2022-10-22,_DD_27.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pfarrkirche St. Georg, Wasserburg, Germany --Poco a poco 08:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overdistorted & looks very unnatural, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 21:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  • A bold direct decline, I made some improvement, it looks like QI to me. Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 08:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately I agree with the "overdistorted" statement. Just check the golden sphere on top of the church. --Plozessor 06:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

File:2022_July_-_JawaharKalaKendra_Jaipur_12_(cropped).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination JawaharKalaKendra, Jaipur --Chainwit. 19:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality, interesting shadow -- Spurzem 22:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very small for a picture of stationary object, below 2MP --Jakubhal 19:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Less than 2 MP. --Plozessor 08:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose less than 2 MP --Sandro Halank 14:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 14:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Saint_Mary_church_in_Lich_(4).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Window of the Saint Mary church in Lich, Hesse, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 06:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadow can look interesting; but in this picture he bothers me. Not a quality picture in my opinion, but others may think otherwise. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem; would not have an issue with the shadow if it wouldn't cut the window, which is the subject of the picture, in half. You could try to reduce the effect in raw conversion (reduce highlights, increase shadows, reduce contrast, increase clarity). --Plozessor 06:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support No details hidden by the shadow. --Smial 12:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Hallo Smial, geht es denn inzwischen nur noch darum, dass alle Details zu sehen sind? Wenn ja, dann sind auch die gelegentlich kritisierten Parkplatzbilder hervorragendst. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 14:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Das ist eine Fehlanalogie. Ich sehe hier keinerlei Gerümpel im Bild (wie auf den Parkplatzbildern) und finde den Schatten halt nicht störend, sondern eher belebend, zumal er eben keine technischen Mängel bewirkt. Wenn du dich am Schatten störst, ist das für mich auch ok. Geschmacksache halt. --Smial 16:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadow may prevent an FP status, but I don't see any hindrance for it becoming a QI.--Peulle 08:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jacek Halicki 14:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Basílica_de_San_Sebastián,_Manila,_Filipinas,_2023-08-27,_DD_08-10_HDR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Basilica of San Sebastian, Manila, Philippines --Poco a poco 06:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Question What happened to the chandeliers? --Plozessor 07:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version, thanks, I oversaw that --Poco a poco 22:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unfortunately looking like before to me. Did you upload the wrong file? --Plozessor 06:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see a difference, the HDR artifacts are gone --Poco a poco 08:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 4 of the chandeliers are still defective in the picture, see the notes I just added. In the current version it's not a QI for me thus I will decline it now, giving you the possibility to move it to discussions. --Plozessor 08:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you that you give that possibility to me, I thought it is everybody's right :) Now seriously, I uploaded a new version, it is better now. --Poco a poco 15:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per the rules written on top of this page, a picture can be moved to discussions ONLY if it has been declined. Anyway, the chandeliers in your new edit could be acceptable but now the whole picture is too dark. --Plozessor 16:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Reset to "Decline". Please change to "Discuss" if you think there should be more opinions. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok, let's move it to CR, I brigthened it also a bit. --Poco a poco 09:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support New version is ok for me. The 4 chandeliers are still not sharp but I think that is acceptable. --Plozessor 06:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Plozessor --Sandro Halank 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

File:At_Singapore_2023_052.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chern Lian Shan: A Visit to the Museum: Taking the Past Forward --Mike Peel 12:34, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment too dark as it is --Charlesjsharp 09:06, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Charlesjsharp: Thanks for looking, lightened, although it is a dark statue. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:34, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment  Oppose better, but unfortunately a bad day and a lower PoV would be better. Looking down on the people doesn't work for me --Charlesjsharp 08:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Charlesjsharp: Thanks for looking again. The day was good, the statue really is this colour, see others in the category. I've done more perspective correction, unfortunately I'm tall with ageing knees. ;-) Maybe worth opening this up for discussion? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:19, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Ok for me. --Plozessor 06:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support ok --Sandro Halank 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Open_Wing_Basking_of_Junonia_hierta_(Fabricius,_1798)_-_Yellow_Pansy_WLB_DSC_9077a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Open Wing Basking of Junonia hierta (Fabricius, 1798) - Yellow PansyThis image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Butterfly. --TAPAN1412 05:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Acceptable! --Plozessor 06:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose just under the bar, but 3rd opinion please --Charlesjsharp 09:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Charles Poco a poco 09:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support After all, the photo has over 8 MPixels and is therefore significantly larger than many other images on the same subject that have already been recognised as QI, as well as being perfectly printable in A4 size, even if you crop it a little smaller. The sharpness of the image also benefits greatly from the fact that it has not been excessively denoised to destroy detail. --Smial 12:56, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral This is one of the borderline cases that I won't support. It is rather low in detail and very noisy, because this was taken with ISO 3,200. However, it looks somewhat better than most of the other recent high-ISO butterfly images. I just added the species category, which was missing. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support undefined 13:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Anna.Massiniundefined 13:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial --Kritzolina 06:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Mike Peel 13:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Oberstadt_25_in_Lich_(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Oberstadt 25 in Lich, Hesse, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Crop is too tight here on the left side. --Milseburg 08:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left corner of the building missing. Also the picture looks distorted due extreme perspective correction, should probably be stretched horizontally a bit. --Plozessor 06:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The crop is a little tight, that's true. But the perspective correction seems to me to be geometrically correct - and I've seen much more blatant and sometimes completely absurdly corrected photos promoted here without any problems... Certainly not a featured picture, but sharpness, lighting, exposure (a bit bright, but acceptable), composition and information content are completely sufficient for QI. --Smial 13:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial. --Sebring12Hrs 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Apparently the house cannot be photographed from a long enough distance, a problem I know all too well. Then you try to correct the perspective in the picture, but in my opinion this didn't work here well. In addition, the gable is too bright. For me it is not a QI. -- Spurzem 22:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but perspective correction has gone too far in my eyes. That we promoted others that went further is no excuse for continuing promoting those where it goes too far. I understand that it is difficult to get a really good picture of this buildin, but sometimes there are buildings, where this is just so and we might never have QIs of them as a whole building. --Kritzolina 08:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kritzolina --Sandro Halank 16:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support--Jacek Halicki 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Rosenbühler_Weg_20231201_HOF02793_RAW-Export.png[edit]

  • Nomination Rosenbühl path in snow in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 18:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Is it possible for you to use jpg format? 88 MB for a picture of this size is way over the top. --Imehling 10:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info I decided to go to PNG because it allows the best opportunity to have a good editing scope. PNG offers better color gradients in image than the JPEG compression for example --PantheraLeo1359531 19:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Interesting question. I would like to have a discussion about that. --Imehling 08:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm pretty sure that there is no rule on Commons that would ban PNGs. Recently someone uploaded a giant TIFF file, and even that is allowed. My personal opinion is that PNG is good for the photographer's personal archive, but JPG in quality 11 (of 12) is good enough for export / publication. --Plozessor 09:01, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Funfact: With irfanview converted to a JPG in the best quality setting and subsampling switched off, the photo is still about 55 MB in size. I then superimposed the two variants and offset them against each other, the result is... almost black. Only if you brighten this result drastically in GIMP shadowy differences become recognisable. The real mistake lies in saving PNG with only 8 bit colour depth per channel, thus combining the worst of both worlds: poor compression of PNG in photos with poor colour depth of JPG. If you really want to take advantage of PNG, you must use 16 bit colour depth per channel. Which of course makes the files considerably larger... --Smial 12:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
When I switched to PNG, I took several points into account. I upload some files with 16 bits per channel for best representation in color gradients and upload a smaller file as new version in 8bit. PNG files are saved 1:1 as edited. With JPEG compression, the image is changed in appearance. Yes, "best quality" compression produces artifacts, that are barely visible. But they are there, especially in areas where the human eye does not see details easily. JPEG groups in 8x8 pixel fields and adds patterns to the image. PNG without these changes offers best editing preconditions. PNG as lossless compressed file indicates that the image is the original. Image sensors generate no perfect images, but tend to leave behind and add "sensor patterns" to images, better identifiable with exaggerating color curves afterwards. As they are not visible with typical settings to the visible eye, they may be changed after JPEG compression. The PNG 1:1 leaves as is and can prove authenticity and show that this image is real (especially in times of AI). Of course, some arguments can be questioned by other people, but I think PNG is better here, especially for historic purposes. There also may be differences in chroma subsampling and some more --PantheraLeo1359531 17:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
And you can switch from this PNG to JPG at any time, if you wish. So you can choose between an original version and a smaller version :) --PantheraLeo1359531 17:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
I did a lossless compression from a PNG to WebP (from 66.6 MiB to 43.7 MiB). This would be a fair deal. But WebP is not really popular --PantheraLeo1359531 17:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why don't you use 16-bit as a standard to achieve a really useful improvement over JPG? When it comes to authenticity, PNG does not have the slightest advantage over JPG, both are formats derived from the RAW format of the camera used, and the algorithms of the raw developers have considerably more influence, especially when interpolating the Bayer matrix, than the small difference between lossless PNG and "JPG in best quality" would make up. What the fighting term "AI" is supposed to prove is unclear to me, if I save artificially generated images as PNG, they are just as "authentic" as your PNG photos. Please don't misunderstand me, I accept your goodwill in wanting to offer a workaround for the weaknesses of the outdated 8-bit JPG format, I'm just trying to make it clear that 8-bit PNG only offers recognisable advantages over JPG if you approach it with forensic methods. Especially when it comes to contrast or brightness manipulation in digital post-processing, 8-bit PNG is just as shitty as 8-bit JPG. At best, RAW data would be truly authentic. --Smial 19:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Reviewing the actual photo, (ahem ;-P ) I think it's a QI. --Peulle 13:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ja, sicher. --Smial 15:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Schon gut, aber ich sehe eigentlich keinen Grund dafür, die Datei so aufzublasen ohne wirklichen Qualitätsgewinn. --Imehling 16:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Wed 06 Dec → Thu 14 Dec
  • Thu 07 Dec → Fri 15 Dec
  • Fri 08 Dec → Sat 16 Dec
  • Sat 09 Dec → Sun 17 Dec
  • Sun 10 Dec → Mon 18 Dec
  • Mon 11 Dec → Tue 19 Dec
  • Tue 12 Dec → Wed 20 Dec
  • Wed 13 Dec → Thu 21 Dec
  • Thu 14 Dec → Fri 22 Dec