There's a rather unfortunately large bit of mud or bark (?) between the camera and the fog that might prevent it from reaching FP status, but, of course, that's not what we're going for here. So, looking at the VI criteria, let's compare. First thing I noticed was most of the category besides your photo is pretty awful. File:Mantidactylus betsileanus.jpg is really the only rival for the position, since VI is about useability in articles, which might mean the low resolution can be ignoted (And it's from Berkeley, so it's presumably correctly identified for once). That feels like a weird result, though. I suppose it's down to this: Is the somewhat deceptive way the frog is blocked off in yours going to mislead about how the frog looks? It's a fairly subtle insertion into the pic, so I'm not sure. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No location for the other image. There are many undescribed species similar to M. betsileanus in other parts of the island and for sure this other image is one of those. Charles (talk) 10:25, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]