Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Rhinogobius flumineus

Rhinogobius flumineus
Voting period ends on 25 Jan 2013 at 18:35:32 (UTC)
 * Reason:A strong one from Commons. The article's a stub, but that's not the end of the world. Also, a Japanese species, which we don't have much of.
 * Articles in which this image appears:Rhinogobius flumineus
 * FP category for this image:Featured pictures/Animals/Fish
 * Creator:Seotaro


 * Support as nominator --J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. A little noisy in the blacks, but it doesn't seem to be affecting the subject itself. Most likely taken in captivity, which should really be mentioned on the image page, and can be seen as a negative at times. Article definitely needs work. --jjron (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Tomer T (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Also, to Jjron: I think we can forgive captive fish photos; it's not like land animals where one can get good-quality photos with the same equipment. The increase in difficulty between on-the-spot underwater photography and aquarium photography (for little additional benefit for shots like this) is far, far more than the increase in difficulty between a zoo and wild shot on land. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe so (and unlike some I'm not especially anti captivity photos, as long as they 'look' natural, although I will give more leeway to shots taken in the wild), however my point is more there's no real reason not to mention it on the image page, which is what Criteria 7 really recommends as well. Yes, this gives the location (Hamamatsu), but is it in an aquarium, in the bay, in a river ...? It's not irrelevant information. --jjron (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per others. J Kadavoor J e e 05:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

--Armbrust The Homunculus 18:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)