Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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 March 2025.
  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 March 2025.
  • 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 March 12 2025 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]] 11:17, 12 March 2025 (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).


March 12, 2025

[edit]

March 11, 2025

[edit]

March 10, 2025

[edit]

March 9, 2025

[edit]

March 8, 2025

[edit]

March 7, 2025

[edit]

March 6, 2025

[edit]

March 5, 2025

[edit]

March 4, 2025

[edit]

March 3, 2025

[edit]

March 2, 2025

[edit]

March 1, 2025

[edit]

February 26, 2025

[edit]

February 25, 2025

[edit]

February 21, 2025

[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:Bhaskareswar_Temple_1.jpg

[edit]

File:Gazania_Mitsuwa.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gazania Mitsuwa --Sabalo22 01:17, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Hardly anything is in focus and the categorization is not acceptable (no botanical category, but three rather meaningless categories instead --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Flower is completely out of focus, plus way too generic description (especially no kind of location, could be anywhere on the planet). --Plozessor 06:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice composition and lighting, but wrong focus, and too low DOF. --Smial 12:04, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:61-248-0062_Pidhaitsi_Maidan_Nezalezhnosti_23_RB.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination House on Independence Square 23, Pidhaitsi, Ternopil region, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 16:45, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Appears too soft to me --MB-one 09:25, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
     Support Ok to me. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 20:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights.--Ermell 06:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Smial 10:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment When I look at the photo „St._Ludwig_(Munich)_front.jpg“ a little further down, I wonder why this picture isn't also good. For underexposed photos seem to be very popular these days, in contrast to shots with flawless colors like the one of the beauty queen Melanie Griffith. Best regards -- Spurzem 11:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:সোনালি-কপাল_পাতা_বুলবুলি.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The golden-fronted leafbird (Chloropsis aurifrons). By User:MD sajjad hossain photography --আফতাবুজ্জামান 17:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Lovely colours and composition. If possible, add a Category for the tree. --Tagooty 03:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
    Oversharpened, could be fixed with better raw conversion probably. --Plozessor 03:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Noticed that it was already promoted before I added my comment, thus sending to discussion. --Plozessor 04:04, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very nice bird, but clearly overprocessed (oversharpened). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Drag_Bike_SSB_FIM_Kawasaki_ZX-12_R_SeeThru.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Drag Bike SSB FIM Kawasaki ZX-12 R (with transparent body for a better view to the technology) ( --Auge=mit 12:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality, interesting image -- Spurzem 14:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Very interesting montage. But the alignment isn't perfect (check the handlebar). --MB-one 16:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment I can only be astonished by this criticism at the highest level. It is indeed not a slammed image as it comes out of the camera, but rather an excellent piece of image editing. -- Spurzem 19:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the advise, the problem has been fixed.--Auge=mit 19:32, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
     Support Very nice and interesting image. S5A-0043 11:16, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good now. Thank you! --MB-one 17:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 17:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Pradaksina.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pradaksina at Borobudur (by Heri nugroho) --FBilula 12:48, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 16:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose violet CA's --Nikride 17:47, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:26, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:St._Ludwig_(Munich)_front.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Ludwig (Munich) --AuHaidhausen 08:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose The image is too dark, obviously underexposed; no QI for me. -- Spurzem 09:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
    Ok now? thank you--AuHaidhausen 10:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
It's better now, but it doesn't really look good. Another problem is the unnatural-looking perspective. Best regards -- Spurzem 18:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support --Granada 18:42, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Towers look too distorted. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Unfortunately, this cannot be avoided when correcting perspectives. But the sharpness is ok.--Ermell 06:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:2023-05-18_Verfassungsfest_RLP_024.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Photographed to the May 18th, 2023 in the Mainz (Germany). By --Ahmet Düz 21:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Btspurplegalaxy 21:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp --Екатерина Борисова 01:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry.--Ermell 10:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 11:52, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry, but probably fixable. --Plozessor 18:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry and lacks details, perhaps because of noise reduction. --Benjism89 19:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Benjism89 19:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

File:MelanieGriffits-CarnavalMDP2025.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Melanie Griffiths, Queen of Labor of the Provincial Festival of Mar del Plata, at the Mar del Plata Carnival 2025 --Ezarate 22:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose oversharpened & noisy --Nikride 07:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Oversharpened, noisy? I disagree. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
     Comment digital artifacts & grainy. and also very dark eyes --Nikride 08:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nikride.--Ermell 09:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, there's too much noise.--Peulle 11:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Oh yes, Peulle, if I think a picture is good, then in your eyes it must be bad. And if there is nothing really to complain about, then it just has too much noise. But may I ask where? -- Spurzem 14:04, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, very noisy. --Benjism89 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I don't know whether to laugh at the judgments or be annoyed. In any case, they confirm to me that it is best not to present any more pictures here. -- Spurzem 22:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment I do not understand how you cannot see the heavy noise, e.g. on the face, visible even when downsized to ca. 2 MP. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too much noise. Should be possible to improve the picture with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 18:48, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Much too noisy --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:At_La_Palma_2020_597.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Part of Ermita de Nuestra Señora de la Concepción, Breña Alta, La Palma, Canary Islands, Spain --Mike Peel 11:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Cayambe 14:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)  Support--Cayambe 07:53, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Top and right side of the building are blurry --Екатерина Борисова 14:42, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 22:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Lori_žlutoskvrnný_–_Scaly-breasted_lorikeet_–_Trichoglossus_chlorolepidotus_(Prague_Zoo)_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Scaly-breasted lorikeet (Trichoglossus chlorolepidotus) in Prague Zoo Skot 18:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 19:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice photo, but head is very blurry --Горбунова М.С. 19:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Very nice photo and IMO by far sharp enough for an A4 print, even though the eye is slightly blurry at full resolution. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:56, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Smial 14:33, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough IMO. --Benjism89 19:31, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Sts_Peter_and_Paul_church_in_Cadeillan_(7).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saints Peter and Paul church in Cadeillan, Gers, France. --Tournasol7 06:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Very poor lighting. The gable is much too bright, the lower part of the facade is too much in shadow. The bells are difficult to see. Sorry, but no QI for me. -- Spurzem 10:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. We have details both in highlights and shadows, no burnt highlights or crushed shadows. I took a look to an aerial view of this area and I'm not sure this façade is ever completely lit, it's facing Northwest and there are trees around it. --Benjism89 18:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Benjism89. --Sebring12Hrs 08:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per spurzem: the red color channel shows strong clipping in the sunlit areas. This can be tolerated if there are a few small highlights that are affected. But here it is large-scale and an important image area. --Smial 10:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting is really not good here --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Saint_Mary_cathedral_in_Lombez_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Mary cathedral in Lombez, Gers, France. --Tournasol7 06:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Extremely poor lighting. The tower is much too bright, especially on the right. The hard shadows below are distracting. -- Spurzem 10:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I disagree. We have details both in highlights and in shadows, and there is actually a nice late afternoon light. The reason I would only weakly support this is because a strong perspective correction was needed here, resulting in distortion and a lack of sharpness on the tower. Not sure about the WB either. --Benjism89 18:34, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Benjism89. --Sebring12Hrs 07:33, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overexposed, unfortunate lighting. --Smial 11:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
  • { Comment Sorry, it's not true. This pictures is not overexposed. Tournasol7 21:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
 Comment Red colour channel clipping at all sunlit areas, about 50% of pixels have values 254 or 255. That's overexposure. --Smial 13:32, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
It's "clipped" or "burnt" ;). Overexposure just has higher values that can be fixed :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Details of the tower are blown out. More importantly, the entire building looks skewed, the right side seems noticeably higher than the left, and the portal is also skewed. Therefore, the overall appearance is unnatural and ugly I dare to say. Sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:53, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Fully agree with Benjism89, clearly over the bar for me. --Plozessor 04:28, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me.--Ermell 06:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 06:48, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Mother_and_son_from_Assam_wearing_bihu_dress.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mother and son from Assam wearing bihu dress. --দিব্য দত্ত 02:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Needs a PR template, otherwise good. --Tagooty 03:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am not sure about this image. While this is a nice scene, the photo is quite noisy, even at low resolution. In addition, the child's face is slightly out of focus and the blurry part at the bottom is not helpful either. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support ok to me.--Ermell 06:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 06:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

[edit]
  • Tue 04 Mar → Wed 12 Mar
  • Wed 05 Mar → Thu 13 Mar
  • Thu 06 Mar → Fri 14 Mar
  • Fri 07 Mar → Sat 15 Mar
  • Sat 08 Mar → Sun 16 Mar
  • Sun 09 Mar → Mon 17 Mar
  • Mon 10 Mar → Tue 18 Mar
  • Tue 11 Mar → Wed 19 Mar
  • Wed 12 Mar → Thu 20 Mar