Commons:Quality images candidates

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

Shortcut
COM:QIC
↓ Skip to nominations ↓
Other languages:
العربية â€¢ ‎ÄeÅ¡tina â€¢ ‎Cymraeg â€¢ ‎Deutsch â€¢ ‎English â€¢ ‎Canadian English â€¢ ‎español â€¢ ‎français â€¢ ‎Bahasa Indonesia â€¢ ‎日本語 â€¢ ‎latvieÅ¡u â€¢ ‎मैथिली â€¢ ‎македонÑки â€¢ ‎Bahasa Melayu â€¢ ‎Nederlands â€¢ ‎polski â€¢ ‎português â€¢ ‎руÑÑкий â€¢ ‎shqip â€¢ ‎svenska â€¢ ‎українÑька â€¢ ‎中文
float

These are the candidates for becoming quality images. Please note that this is not the same thing as featured pictures. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

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]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


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.
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 and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotion[edit]

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from 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 also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • 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 08 2018 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 can not 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 are only working on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 08:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

September 8, 2018[edit]

September 7, 2018[edit]

September 6, 2018[edit]

September 5, 2018[edit]

September 4, 2018[edit]

September 3, 2018[edit]

September 2, 2018[edit]

September 1, 2018[edit]

August 31, 2018[edit]

August 30, 2018[edit]

August 29, 2018[edit]

August 28, 2018[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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Diakonie_Ansbach_Rummelsbergerstrasse_11_HaJN_4880.jpg[edit]

Diakonie Ansbach Rummelsbergerstrasse 11 HaJN 4880.jpg

  • Nomination Diakonie Ansbach Rummelsbergerstrasse 11 HaJN 4878 --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment very nice image, good sharpness, but the building is cut off on the right. Is a wider crop possible? --Carschten 08:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Sorry, wider view is not possible with this image. At this time 18mm (and this is not the best objective with 18-20mm@FX) was my shortest lens oder strongest WA. Right side you will see a modern building, the parking place and cars. I must taken a decision, cut the tree left and keep disturbing cars oder cut the dark and not so important side from the building. I keep the tree for compostition. Actually it´s a non documented monument in Ansbach / (bcs. it´s Diakonie) maybee another time - means next year...and how we get results right now?--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 12:59, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
    I see what you mean, it's difficult. Nevertheless I tend to oppose because of the too tight crop on the right, but I put this one in the CR. --Carschten 23:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Thatched_Cottage_on_Cricket_Hill_Ln,_Yateley,_2017-09-23.jpg[edit]

Thatched Cottage on Cricket Hill Ln, Yateley, 2017-09-23.jpg

  • Nomination Thatched Cottage, Cricket Hill Ln, Yateley --Lewis Hulbert 15:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. I can't see the building. The picture is too dark. And there are several other issues like the crop at the bottom. --XRay 17:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree XRay. It´s DX, object is in shadows, sky is shiny. The job was to take the monument in England not Spain. For me indeed absolute QI --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as per XRay. --Yann 05:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose PerXRay --Michielverbeek 17:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 11:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Man_making_a_statue_of_wood.jpg[edit]

Man making a statue of wood.jpg

  • Nomination Man making a statue of wood - Czech Republic. --Adámoz 16:39, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right crop is not really good --Poco a poco 17:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 06:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Not a QI to me like this as already said --Poco a poco 17:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right crop is disadvantageous. --Milseburg 11:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per the others.--Peulle 11:48, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 11:16, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Tractor_Zetor_in_the_Czech_Republic.jpg[edit]

Tractor Zetor in the Czech Republic.jpg

  • Nomination Tractor Zetor in the Czech Republic --Adámoz 09:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment CA overall and the right crop (a pice of the sign is gone) is not really good --Poco a poco 17:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 06:20, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a QI to me like this as already said --Poco a poco 17:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think the composition is succeeded. --Milseburg 12:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Poco.--Ermell 12:53, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:11, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Bamberg_Rui_Chafes_8272120.jpg[edit]

Bamberg Rui Chafes 8272120.jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture by Rui Chafes in the courtyard of the University of Bamberg --Ermell 06:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the background disturbs --TheRunnerUp 18:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree. Unfortunately, there is no other way to photograph the artwork. --Ermell 19:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
    Ok, than you made a very good image of this object, but not a "quality image" --TheRunnerUp 20:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Probably a photo in winter without leaves gives a better background. Technically the image is perfectly QI, background somewhat unpleasant, but natural, so "weak" support. --Smial 13:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your support und the suggestion but the exhibition ended in August.--Ermell 12:55, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support More then sufficient pic quality. For my eyes the roof right side is disturbing the view a lot. From artist image is making as it should be. "Metall into Trees." To play in b&w or downgrading green saturation could be an option. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don´t know the artist's intention, but maybe this surrounding and background is part of it. --Milseburg 12:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 12:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Mimegralla_albimana_7782.jpg[edit]

Mimegralla albimana 7782.jpg

  • Nomination Mimegralla albimana --Vengolis 02:32, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion The file name needs changing, and it's a bit small; is there a larger version available?--Peulle 12:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: File name changed ✓ Done. No larger version available:( -Vengolis 08:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC) I just don't know. I think I'm leaning towards
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose given the fairly small size but I would like to have a second opinion so I'm moving this to CR.--Peulle 10:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - QI to me. I don't see where it's lacking. -- Ikan Kekek 06:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support o.k. for me.--Ermell (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Lmbuga 13:09, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The quality of an image is completely independent of its file name. The serial number of the camera or the software for image processing are indeed not rated. --Ralf Roletschek 14:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 16:58, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   ---Ermell (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Snow_bridge_near_Småtindisen.jpg[edit]

Snow bridge near Småtindisen.jpg

  • Nomination Snow bridge near SmÃ¥tindisen. --Frankemann 13:48, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What is the ligt flare on the left side? --TheRunnerUp 18:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support @TheRunnerUp, I think you just intended to leave a comment, which you do by simply typing the comment and not changing "Nomination". But since it's here, I support and find that this photo looks really good. -- Ikan Kekek 07:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportYou are right - sorry, I'm new here. Yes, the photo ist good. What must be done to get it back to the correct way?--TheRunnerUp (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't worry about it; the process here at CR will carry on as normal and the photo will be promoted after 2 days if there are no opposing votes. Moving it here just delays it a little while. Welcome to the boards. :) --Peulle 09:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThank you for your interest in the photo, and sorry for the late reply! The ligt flare is reflected sunlight, that is to say strong sun at low altitude. Kind regards --Frankemann 16:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:33, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Hall_of_public_audience_description,_Agra_Fort.jpg[edit]

Hall of public audience description, Agra Fort.jpg

  • Nomination Hall of public audience description, Agra Fort, India. --Yann 09:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Sorry. I see white edges bottom left and right. --XRay 16:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I cropped it. Yann 06:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO OK now. Thank you. --XRay 11:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Sufficient quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 11:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Cap_carbon_bejaia.jpg[edit]

Cap carbon bejaia.jpg

  • Nomination English: Cap carbon, Béjaia province in Algerie. By User:Mokhtarjet7 --Reda Kerbouche 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bottom is a hard shadow, top isn't very sharp --Trougnouf 13:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. The shadow gives focus to the rock. --Yann 18:11, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment All buildings on the rock are leaning --Smial 10:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Physikzentrum_Bad_Honnef_2018-05-05_23.jpg[edit]

Physikzentrum Bad Honnef 2018-05-05 23.jpg

  • Nomination Hölterhoffstift, aerial view --Birds-eye 14:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose unscharfe Ecken --Ralf Roletschek 18:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, object is shown on QI-level, a little crop and the image is fine! --Sujalajus 18:41, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 13:29, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Physikzentrum_Bad_Honnef_2018-05-05_30.jpg[edit]

Physikzentrum Bad Honnef 2018-05-05 30.jpg

  • Nomination Hölterhoffstift, aerial view --Birds-eye 14:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tsui 17:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree - unscharf in den Ecken --Ralf Roletschek 17:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp towards the borders. --Basotxerri 18:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The castle is sharp. --Yann 18:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others, especially regarding the lower left corner. The whole image have to be QI. --Milseburg 13:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The whole image got too much perspectiv correction. Now the vertical lines of the bildings are vertical, but the trees do not look natural an the manhole covers at the right are distorted. --TheRunnerUp 20:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

File:2018_Kościół_św._Michała_Archanioła_w_Lewinie_Kłodzkim_2.jpg[edit]

2018 Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Lewinie Kłodzkim 2.jpg

  • Nomination Saint Michael Archangel church in Lewin KÅ‚odzki 2 --Jacek Halicki 08:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but imo car and powerline are pretty disturbing --Moroder 11:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree and please discuss --Jacek Halicki 21:43, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. The car doesn't hide relevant parts, and we can't cut power lines. Not a great photo, but good lighting, informative and technically good enough for QI. --Smial 07:44, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I believe that if you want to shoot a quality photo you can wait the car to pass or ask the driver to move. For the power line once can userà mor suitable lens or shooting angle --Moroder 18:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree with Smial. -- Ikan Kekek 09:10, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The car is OK, but the power line is a problem. Yann 09:23, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the power line is a no go for a QI. --TheRunnerUp 20:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On the other hand we have to notice, that File:2018 KoÅ›ciół Å›w. MichaÅ‚a ArchanioÅ‚a w Lewinie KÅ‚odzkim 1.jpg went through despite the power line without any complaint. --Milseburg 12:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Yann 06:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)[edit]

Fri 31 Aug → Sat 08 Sep
Sat 01 Sep → Sun 09 Sep
Sun 02 Sep → Mon 10 Sep
Mon 03 Sep → Tue 11 Sep
Tue 04 Sep → Wed 12 Sep
Wed 05 Sep → Thu 13 Sep
Thu 06 Sep → Fri 14 Sep
Fri 07 Sep → Sat 15 Sep
Sat 08 Sep → Sun 16 Sep