Some, but not all. Need better quality pix. You might try posting in the Electrical forum.

I don't need a better picture to tell you that all connections need to be made in a accessible junction box. I don't know the circumstances of those walls, but Romex must be unexposed.

Out of focus, routing, protecting, fill, enclosure. and attachment.

"Romex must be unexposed". What code reference?

334.15(b) 2014 National Electrical Code:

(B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be
protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid
metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or other approved means. Where passing through a floor, the cable shall be enclosed in rigid metal conduit, intermediate metal conduit, electrical metallic tubing, Schedule 80 PVC conduit, or other approved means extending at least 150 mm (6 in.) above the floor.

"WHERE NECESSARY" So how do you interpret Article 334.10(A)(1)?

"Can you spot the deficiencies in these pics?"

As snoopy said they are out of focus, difficult to see the subjects.

That being said all connections should in a box and not just hanging in space.

Tre: I can say with a high degree of confidence that the vast majority of interior residential wiring that I've seen is not in conduit.

But I'm not an electrician.

sdello:

Romex does not need to be in conduit if it is covered by drywall. The problem is, for instance, Romex stapled to the bottom of a sink cabinet to get to a receptacle on the end of a cabinet run.

if you say so, but I've got and seen lots of unfinished basement light wiring stapled to joists without conduit. All junctions are enclosed either by the fixture or in a box.

Not to mention wiring in an unfinished attic space along the ceiling joists etc.

Same as your example, I don't believe I've seen conduit regularly used for wiring hidden behind a fascia like that.

I don't see it as a hazard.

Avoiding the question? So how do you interpret Article 334.10(A)(1)?
My interest is that readers here not be misinformed.

bus_driver:

To whom is your question addressed?

"I don't see it as a hazard."

This is why the building codes are to protect you, from you.

"(B) Protection from Physical Damage. Cable shall be
protected from physical damage where necessary by rigid"

In residential applications where there is a potential for damage from otherwise normal occupant activity.

Locally, wiring in garages must be encased in metallic conduit to a height of 8' above the floor.

In chicago, everything is in conduit.

Generally, it's common sense that on the exterior the potential for damage is a given.

"Where passing through a floor"

Walls get moved, accidentally and on purpose.

Actually , the requirement for protection 334.15 (B) where NM cable passes through a floor requires that the protection extend 6 INCHES above the floor. That would protect against floor polishers, vacuum cleaners and similar insults to the cable.
Look at the post above of Tue, Jul 29, 14 at 17:10. The title of 334.15 is EXPOSED WORK.
"Romex must be unexposed". Baloney!

"I don't see it as a hazard."
This is why the building codes are to protect you, from you.

oh stop it.

You post this and then you proceed to add "In residential applications where there is a potential for damage from ....otherwise normal occupant activity." Which means what exactly?

During normal occupant activity there is no potential for damage to wiring stapled to the sides of ceiling joints. Like I said I don't see a hazard.

I think you and others give great advice on this forum but sometimes the level of caution borders the ridiculous.

""Romex must be unexposed". Baloney!"

Thanks. I'm gonna try that line on the inspector on my next job. I'll bet it works great.

"Thanks. I'm gonna try that line on the inspector on my next job. I'll bet it works great."
Your inspector is as subject to error as any of us.
Since you dance around the issue and avoid mention of 334.10A)(1), here it is for the benefit of others.
"Type MN. Type NM cable shall be permitted as follows:
(1). For both exposed and concealed work in normally dry locations except as prohibited in 334.10(3)."
334.10(3) does not include single and multifamily dwellings, so those are not prohibited..

".otherwise normal occupant activity." Which means what exactly?"

It means that the code is intended to address ALL of the buildings on the lot.

Not, just the places you choose to, individually apply it to, for your conveyance.

The word that's throwing me is "otherwise".

If it means the potential for damage due to "normal occupant activity" then yes I'd agree. In a tool shed, garage, indoor sports area, fencing room, shooting range, near a dart board, home shop, etc. where there is a potential for damage wiring should be protected by cover.

Actually, your response pretty much says it only applies in the places one chooses as long as the code officials would agree with the assessment that there is no potential for damage based on "normal occupant activity" at that particular location.

I don't know how much experience anyone else has had with inspectors, but its been mine that the code is what the inspector says it is on any given day.

It doesn't matter if you have his supervisor's approval written on your stamped engineer's drawings either.

"Actually, your response pretty much says it only applies in the places one chooses as long as the code officials would agree with the assessment that there is no potential for damage based on "normal occupant activity" at that particular location."

Actually, it's a generalization.

An, as for instance, would be 200' of 2 wire, 16ga. extension cord laying across several walkways, running a headbolt htr.

There are suitable ways of mounting doorbell transformers; that's not one of them.
One of mine (probably ca. 1947 when my house was converted to up/down apts) has the TF mounted to the cover of a 4" j-box, so the 120v feeds are covered and the 6/12v taps are open, The two don't mingle, which is hunky dory then as now.
Casey