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]
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 February 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 February 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 February 27 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]] 04:42, 27 February 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


February 27, 2024[edit]

February 26, 2024[edit]

February 25, 2024[edit]

February 24, 2024[edit]

February 23, 2024[edit]

February 22, 2024[edit]

February 21, 2024[edit]

February 20, 2024[edit]

February 19, 2024[edit]

February 18, 2024[edit]

February 17, 2024[edit]

February 16, 2024[edit]

February 15, 2024[edit]

February 14, 2024[edit]

February 13, 2024[edit]

February 12, 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".



File:Shy_albatross_(Thalassarche_cauta)_in_flight_Bruny_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta) --Charlesjsharp 12:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 12:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpened --Jakubhal 14:03, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly overprocessed but acceptable, very good at 4 MP, and in general a great shot. --Plozessor 04:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Tamil_Methodist_Church,_Singapore_(01).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tamil Methodist Church. Moheen 16:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Incomplete categorization: Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation, Valued images missing SDC Commons quality assessment and Valued images missing SDC creator. Fixable? --F. Riedelio 18:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The data object P625 (coordinate location) has potential problems. It should probably be called P9149 (coordinates of depicted place). --F. Riedelio 08:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Unfavorable cropping (too much foreground). --F. Riedelio 08:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC))
  •  Oppose Shadow is distracting. --A1Cafel 04:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with F. Riedelio that it wouldn't hurt to crop a part of the street away, but no issue with the shadow. --Plozessor 04:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Pörtschach_Sallach_Sallacher_Straße_41_Strußnighof_NO-Ansicht_18022024_0726.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Strußnighof on Sallacher Straße #41 in Sallach, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Bgag 03:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Burnt sky (probably too high ISO) --PantheraLeo1359531 13:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Галайки._Пам'ятник_воїнам-односельцям_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to Soviet soldiers-countrymen in Halaiky --Nikride 08:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Berthold Werner 09:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the leaves (top corner on the right), blown highlights on the clouds and on the statue. Not QI for me. Alexander Novikov 11:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Nikride 15:14, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This has still a lot of CA, and color errors in the outer areas. You probably removed the fringes but that is not enough. Also the crosses and poles on the left side have some intense blue areas which do not look natural. I think the issues can be fixed only during raw conversion, not in post-processing of the JPG. --Plozessor 06:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed and overprocessed. The clipping areas on the statue are probably not fixable. Lots of artifacts everywhere. --Smial 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Lille_cite_administrative_rue_duez.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Cité administrative de Lille, Rue Paul Duez, in Lille, France --Velvet 07:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Nikride 08:58, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I think this picture needs crop on the right and bottom shadows denoising. I'm not sure this is fixable. Let's discuss. Alexander Novikov 11:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Potential FOP issue, being discussed at the DR. --A1Cafel 04:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --A1Cafel 04:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Montevideo_2023_170.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bust of Amado Nervo, Montevideo --Mike Peel 07:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 08:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the shadows on the statue's eyes. Alexander Novikov 11:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Plozessor 06:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 11:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -Another Believer 17:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Puerto_Vallarta,_Mexico_(February_2024)_-_059.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Casa Kimberly, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico --Another Believer 03:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Perspective correction necessary --Llez 06:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

File:1_Bulevardul_Gheorghe_Magheru,_Bucharest_(02).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Art Deco building no. 1 on Bulevardul Gheorghe Magheru, Bucharest --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 10:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Svetlov Artem 16:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose No FoP in Romania --MB-one 15:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
    Crop is borderline but could be ok, but verticals have been overcorrected (it's now leaning out on both sides). --Plozessor 17:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
     Support You don't bring any proof of construction year, or architecte name. --Sebring12Hrs 08:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    • @Sebring12Hrs: unfortunately it works the other way around. Per COM:PCP we would need proof, that the design is in the PD or we have a written release by the owner to the rights. --MB-one 14:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
      • @MB-one: We have to bring the proof for everything. But someone bring it on the deletion request page. So I withdraw my vote. --Sebring12Hrs 20:48, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, User:MB-one appears to be right. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Potential FOP issue. --A1Cafel 17:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --A1Cafel 17:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

File:5-7_Bulevardul_Gheorghe_Magheru,_Bucharest_(04).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hotel Lido in Bucharest --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 06:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Svetlov Artem 16:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Potential FOP issue, being discussed at the DR. --A1Cafel 03:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
     Support It depends of the construction period. Can you prove it ? --Sebring12Hrs 13:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I don't like that, but you are right for this one. --Sebring12Hrs 08:30, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with A1Cafel. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Elephas_maximus_in_Singapore_Zoo,_20240206_0856_6195.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) in Singapore Zoo --Jakubhal 04:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 05:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose partly hidden by rock --Charlesjsharp 11:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support That does not disqualify it as a QI IMO. --Plozessor 17:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop. --Kallerna 16:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, I have a higher bar for a zoo image. --Tagooty 03:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Tagooty 03:18, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Chroicocephalus_serranus_in_Huaripampa_ravine.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chroicocephalus serranus in Huaripampa ravine, Huascaran National Park, Peru --Felino Volador 22:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Rangan Datta Wiki 02:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose all blurry; no definition --Charlesjsharp 11:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Charles, sorry. Looks a little dark overall too. BigDom (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Chroma noise, blur, too dark. --Plozessor 17:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Hochbauamt,_St._Gallen_(1Y7A2322).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hochbauamt of the Canton St. Gallen --MB-one 09:59, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Question Is there a way to show the building on the top right completely? --Poco a poco 11:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 Comment That crop is not possible. But IMO it's not so bad. --MB-one 08:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Rangan Datta Wiki 12:52, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Can you please wait for MB-one's answer. To me it isn't a QI like this. --Poco a poco 21:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This should go to discussion, not reset to "to review" after promotion --Plozessor 04:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Kniphofia_Uvaria_-_A74058920240105.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kniphofia Uvaria. --Rjcastillo 01:25, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF is insufficient -- middle flower is blurry. Sharpening may help? --Tagooty 03:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the reviews, @Tagooty. I'll try, but my idea was that only the first flower would be clear. --Rjcastillo 23:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Assuming that User:Tagooty meant to oppose, I am sending this to CR. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the flower on the right is sharp. --Palauenc05 11:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review, add some sharpening to the flower on the left side. --Rjcastillo 16:33, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable with the sharpening. --Tagooty (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

File:NutcrackerPasDeDeux2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grand Pas de Deux, The Nutcracker --Lambtron 21:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    This could work out if you'd manage to reduce the chroma noise. --Plozessor 19:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Unfortunately  Not done --Plozessor 15:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
     Support IMO Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 16:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
     Support. Good image and good quality. -- Spurzem 21:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Uploaded version with reduced chroma noise. But a much better result could be achieved if the raw format were available, because the photo presented is clearly too compressed. NeatImage has also reduced these compression artifacts somewhat, but you can't do magic with it either. A pity, because it's a great action shot. --Smial 11:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The photo is still rather noisy and some of the woman's fingers look peculiar. The image was taken at ISO 1,600, which is the highest ISO of this camera, and with f/2.8. So DOF is quite low anyway. Stronger noise reduction may lead to even less sharpness or the need for excessive sharpening resulting in artifacts. I am sorry, but it might be really difficult or impossible to repair this photo. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello Robert, do you think, that you could take a better photo of a comparable scene? This is a question I nearly always ask myself before declaring a photo that someone else took a failure. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not Robert, but I think I could achieve a way better result from this picture's raw file. --Plozessor 19:12, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Lothar, the image noise is not so bad that it cannot be reduced to an acceptable level. I don't expect a high-ISO action photo to have as little noise as a static subject, nor do I expect a depth of field from the front lens to the horizon. Unfortunately, the excessive JPEG compression prevents a suitable reworking. Irfanview reports 79% jpg quality, which is really very low and you can see this in the JPG blocks even in normal view without zooming in. --Smial 23:40, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Hallo Smial, that may all be true. Nevertheless, I always get annoyed when I see how photographic junk is hyped up as a quality image and really successful, appealing photos are dismissed. My question whether the juror feels capable of taking a comparable picture is certainly justified. Certainly better things are possible today in terms of camera technology than what the image under discussion is based on. But in my opinion this should not be decisive for the evaluation of a photo. Best regards -- Spurzem 14:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Robert Flogaus-Faust. --MB-one 10:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 21:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

  • Mon 19 Feb → Tue 27 Feb
  • Tue 20 Feb → Wed 28 Feb
  • Wed 21 Feb → Thu 29 Feb
  • Thu 22 Feb → Fri 01 Mar
  • Fri 23 Feb → Sat 02 Mar
  • Sat 24 Feb → Sun 03 Mar
  • Sun 25 Feb → Mon 04 Mar
  • Mon 26 Feb → Tue 05 Mar
  • Tue 27 Feb → Wed 06 Mar