Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List#Guidelines for dinosaur restorations Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Images in review

Art by Miracusaurs

Miracusaurs, a relatively new Wiki user, has been recently uploading restorations of various dinosaurs. You can see all of them here. Here are just a few:

• 
  Lusitanosaurus
• 
  Horshamosaurus
• 
  Bonapartenykus
• 
  Bayannurosaurus
• 
  Arkharavia

I'm wondering about the accuracy of several of these... SlvrHwk (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The osteoderms on both thyreophorans look dodgy. Also, I think the foot anatomy of Bayannurosaurus has been misinterpreted, it appears to be walking on its claws. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Lythronaxargestes: Just corrected the foot anatomy.

I don't mean just the pedes, it's all four extremities including the "hands". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

It's supposed to be slightly rearing, so the hand claws are extended. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not obvious to me. A repose might help? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. What do you think of it now? Miracusaurs (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

• The osteoderms of the Horshamosaurus and Lusitanosaurus are speculative and mostly based on Polacanthus and Scelidosaurus, respectively. Without more remains, they obviously can't be very accurate. And besides, thyreophorans aren't exactly my strong suit! Miracusaurs (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The ones dangling from the end of the tail bother me a lot. I don't know if it's an attempt at perspective, but I'm pretty sure neither Polacanthus nor Scelidosaurus have them. They are just too large overall. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I replaced the side spikes on Horshamosaurus' tail with bumps and made the tail spikes of Lusitanosaurus smaller, because Scott Hartman's Scelidosaurus has small spikes until the very tip. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

While I'm guilty of using patterns of living animals in restorations myself, the Bonapartenykus looks just a little too close to a modern chicken. It's very conspicuous. What are the chances the exact same configuration of wattles would evolve independently twice? At least the colour could be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Done. What do you think of it now? Miracusaurs (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The wattle is still a bit conspicuous, hmmm, what if it was for example bluish? FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Done. How about now? Miracusaurs (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Less obvious, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Draconyx

Any thoughts on this one? Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Very skinny tail? Could need some shading. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hadrosaurid Size Comparison Updates

Gryposaurus

Prosaurolophus

Corythosaurus

Edmontosaurus regalis

Many of my hadrosaurid size comparisons were made before I fully understood hadrosaurid anatomy, and frequently show aberrant midline feature scales. When I made (and then re-made) my Gryposaurus size comparison, I was unaware that skin impressions were known for this genus, so I've updated the chart to show this (although they're from a different species, so I'm aware that this may prove to be totally inaccurate in the future). I've redrawn the entire animal, and unfortunately it appears to look a bit more awkward now, I'm not totally sure what's up with that. I plan on adding G. notabilis, G. incurvimanus, and maybe even G. latidens to the chart soon, and then going on to update most of my other hadrosaurids. Any comments on this update or reccomendations for any others? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it would look less awkward if you added the other two limbs? Or flexed the limbs more? Also, there appears to be a small red speck over the hind limbs of the animal. SlvrHwk (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've flexed the hindlimb a bit more (and added more flesh to the tail base), it does feel a bit more natural now. Good job spotting that red speck, that was part of a mockup of the femur I meant to delete after getting the leg in place! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

• Here are the silhouettes for the two Dinosaur Park Fm. species, G. notabilis is the darker one and G. incurvimanus is the lighter one, G. monumentensis is at the right for comparison. I think that I can throw in G. latidens, though it will take some time to draw, as there are no pre-made references that I know of for it. Any comments on G. notabilis and/or G. incurvimanus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added the DPF species to the image, any comments? It seems like the validity of G. incurvimanus is pretty unstable, so I've put a "?" after it in the key. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The humpback on G. notabilis looked weird to me but it looks like that's a genuine feature. Any reason to think that the other species would or would not have had it? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

G. notabilis' hump is formed by the posterior sacrals & anterior caudals, which are known in G. incurvimanus. These neural spines of this species(?) are a bit elevated, but it's pretty nondescript: [1][2]. The postcranial remains of G. monumentensis haven't been described in detail yet to my knowledge, but UMNH VP 12265 is claimed to have preserved "most of the dorsal, sacral, and caudal series", so I'm guessing Hartman's skeletal takes this into account (again, there's a litte bit of a rise, but not as weird as in G. notabilis). I think that the feature scales also mask this feature a little. Oh, I forgot to mention that I excluded G. latidens as its vertebral material isn't well described yet and I got weird proportions when I tried scaling it, so I'd rather wait for more information in the literature. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• I've updated Prosaurolophus. Any comments? I do quite like the old feature scale shape that I used, but unfortunately, no known hadrosaurid has such a shape, so they had to go... I've replaced them here with scales based on those of Saurolophus angustirostris. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• I've almost finished updating my Corythosaurus size chart, but I can't seem to find any bone measurements for C. intermedius, does anyone know of any? Also, are there any images in the literature showing the mildine feature scales of Brachylophosaurus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:30, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Various measurements are given in the appendices of Dave Hone's tail length paper: [3] Figure 1 provides a scale bar too. Note that ROM 845 is C. intermedius. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, the measurements listed match Paul's skeletal pretty well, so I scaled the silhouette to femoral length. I've updated the chart now. Next up will probably be Shantungosaurus (I've already updated Saurolophus and Magnapaulia behind the scenes, hopefully I'll be able to update the giant ornithopod size chart soon). Any thoughts on the Corythosaurus update? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I find myself noticing the very different dorsal profiles, but I assume that's genuine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be genuine, the shape for C. casuarius definitely matches the fossils, and all C. intermedius mounts and Paul's skeletal seem to show a more gradually sloping dorsal profile of the torso. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

• Before I can get to Shantungosaurus, I should probably work on overhauling my Edmontosaurus silhouettes. E. regalis will probably just be based on Hartman's skeletal, but E. annectens is a bit more complex. I've thrown together this schematic for the paratype specimen (with a little help from the "Trachodon" mummy for part of the hand), which I'll probably use to draw the silhouette in the end (though I'll probably rely on a less crushed skull). Aside from the trainwreck of a ribcage, it feels like something's slightly off in terms of anatomy, though I can't quite place my finger on it. Any recommendations/comments? I'll also likely have to take a break from most to all of my wiki activities for a while, starting tomorrow and lasting for quite some time, so I probably won't complete this update too quickly. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The head looks a bit small compared to this E. annectens skeletal by Danielle Dufault: [4] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be correct, here's an updated version with a larger head: [5]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

• I still haven't finished E. annectens (or even progressed on it at all, to be fully truthful), but here's an updated E. regalis. The comb paper stated that there were no midline feature scales preserved, and since the preserved area covers a great deal of the back, I've omitted them from this update. How does this new silhouette look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
• I've finished assembling a schematic for YPM 2182, but from what I can tell, its proportions are somewhat different from those of AMNH 5730 ("Anatotitan"). Does anyone know of any publications that show the AMNH mount in lateral view (or even just a set of measurements for it)? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

A number of measurements for AMNH 5730 here: [6] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:16, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll be useful when adjusting to the proportions. Is there any measurement of the specimen's tail length in the literature? (Also, sorry for the really late response). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Colbert gives some measurements for individual caudals here: [7] Can't find anything else at the moment... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:21, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've updated my Charonosaurus silhouette in the background. Since, unlike Magnapualia and Saurolophus, its anatomy may be quite controversial, I'm posting a link to it here: [8]. That crest is a combination of Tlatolophus and Parasaurolophus tubicen, which seemed like the most neutral method of reconstructing it. I'm still somewhat unsure of it, though, any comments on it? Is anything else amiss? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:51, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hypothetical reconstruction Walgettosuchus

I'm not sure this is a useful image, it's 99% speculative... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

My main issue with this is that, regardless of the speculation, the silhouette looks like an allosaurid, not a group that Walgettosuchus has been assigned to (as far as I know). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it is excuseable in this instance: most of the illustrations of Walgettosuchus online depict a very allosaurid-like animal, so I suppose it makes sense for someone to use them as references. Borophagus (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally perfer it if the silhouette was a megaraptoran, as considering it may be synonyms with Rapator, which has been classified as a megaraptoran. Additionally, allosaurids are dubious from Australia, and to my knowledge none have been discovered within the Griman Creek Formation, so making it an allosauird makes no sense to me. Kingmeatballs 6:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I know very little about dinosaur anatomy, but the mechanics look wrong: unless the tail is much heavier than it looks and/or the torso and head are much lighter than they look, I have to wonder how it keeps from falling forward. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Australotitan Skeletals

Kingmeatballs and Sauriazoicillus have both uploaded skeletal diagrams of Australotitan and added them to its article. One thing that strikes me as odd about both of them is their very long necks and tails, a characteristic not usually shown in diamantinasaurians, as far as I know. The scapulocoracoids should probably be more vertical in both. The first seems to have an unusually large head, the second seems to have an unusually tall ilium.

Another thing of note, unrelated to the accuracy of the skeletals, is that a size estimate is given in the article, cited to the description paper. However, I cannot find this estimate in it, and it is even stated that: "although it is tempting to produce an estimate of body mass for A. cooperensis based on the preserved and reconstructed stylopodial circumferences we consider that this will not add significant interpretative value to our main purpose of describing this taxon, and comparing it to other members of the Titanosauria from the Winton Formation and semi-contemporaneous faunas", which indicates that the authors were hesitant about estimating overall size. I'm going to go ahead and remove the estimates, though please revert it if I've missed something. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the 30 m estimate is parroting the press, as usual. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the critique, Im currentally in the process of revising the diagram accroding to this advice. I'll post it here once i think my mistakes have been corrected. Kingmeatballs 1:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for critique and information, I will revise my diagram as well according to the critique given. I will also post it here once I'm happy with it. Sauriazoicillus 1:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, the left diagram has a substantially shorter humerus than femur, while the right diagram shows the humerus somewhat longer than the femur. J. Spencer (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated my reconstruction, I have removed the size estimates, resized the humeri and updated the shilouette, is this good? Sauriazoicillus 12:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks better, but there are still some things that need to be fixed. This paper: [9] indicates that the scapulocoracoid should be roughly perpendicular to the dorsal column. It may just be my imagination, but there still seems to be quite a big space for the ilium (between the lower pelvic bones and edge of the silhouette). I'd also recommend basing the skull on that of Sarmientosaurus, if that's not already the case (it's a bit hard to tell in silhouette form). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean with the scapulocoracoid as it looks perpendicular to me, would it be possible to send me an email or send an image here showing me what you mean? In terms of the ilium, when compared to the ilia of other Titanosaurs it seems that there really isn't too much space. Also yes, I did base the skull on Sarmientosaurus. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a rough diagram explaining what I'm talking about with the scapulocoracoid: [10] (keep in mind that this is highly simplified and generalized). Here's a link to the paper arguing for more vertical scapulocoracoids: [11]; the skeletal diagram with the juvenile and the giraffe in the Spinophorosaurus article also depicts the newer scapular angle. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah alrighty! Thank you, sorry about the inconveniance I have a hard time visualising without refrences, I'll get right to work! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the size chart by readjusting the scapula and changed the shilouette to fit it, is this better? Any more critique? (Also I'm very sorry about the long wait life got a bit hectic) Sauriazoicillus (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The scapular angle definitely looks better, no worries about the wait! I don't see anything else amiss with your reconstruction (though I must admit that it's been a while since I last worked with sauropods). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Alrighty!!! Thank you so much for your help! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Restauração da vida de Yangchuanosaurus

Image by user Nobu Tomura. I think the file was put on wikipedia with no revision, according with my quick check on the last revisions of this project. I think the skull is too thin and elongated. And maybe the legs are too big? Gallimimus wikipedista. (talk) 15:07, 22 July (UTC)

It was actually put up for review here[12] (and maybe elsewhere), and I did some adjustments to it. You can click on an image and see if it is used in the review archives. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It may be worth having someone create a new Yang reconstruction from scratch at this point, as Tamura's rendition here doesn't seem to hold up to our current understanding of the animal. It seems like Yang had oddly short legs and a proportionately much larger and shorter skull than depicted here (as well as a much more... crest-y skull, as opposed to Tamura's reconstruction which appears to understate the keratinous elements to the point of inaccuracy, the nasal ornamentation especially appearing all but absent). --TKWTH (talk) 13:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Mahakala omnogovae

Here I've made a life reconstruction of Mahakala omnogovae using the skeletal that is currently in the article, is it up to standard?

Reconstruction by "Sauriazoicillus"

Thanks in advance for your help Sauriazoicillus 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it meant to be sitting? The posture feels a bit unnatural. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Not a problem I think: [13]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks very nice. Good to see more of these guys out here. A minor issue: the watermark/sign is probably too big, not even sure if Commons agrees with watermarks. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that watermark is distracting. You should be aware that, since the image is under a free licence, anybody could simply create a version without it; making the watermark much smaller and non-distracting would, I think, make it much more likely that this will not happen. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, I agree. Good examples could be those of Fred Wierum. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I have shrunk the watermark and moved it to a less distracting place, is this better? Any more things I could change? Sauriazoicillus 6:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I think it looks very nice as it is. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• One thing, the first finger looks like it is very far removed from the second, feather bearing finger? FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That's probably just the way I've drawn the feathering. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

This looks fantastic, actually. I wouldn't change anything; the watermark is small enough that it isn't distracting from the image so I wouldn't change it. Luxquine (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Protoceratopsidae life restorations

• 
  Protoceratops andrewsi
• 
  Protoceratops hellenikorhinus
• 
  Breviceratops

With the topic of Bagaceratops it has become clear that other members are also in need of updated restorations. Comments about these? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the eyes are too large for some of these. The visible part of the eye should only correspond to the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Both Protoceratops are based in what is known from the sclerotic ring of AMNH 6466. After all, there's a specific paper focused on the large eyes of this taxon, so they should be fine. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm also mainly thinking of Breviceratops. But I wonder if there is anything to base it on. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh I see. Well, Breviceratops is basically known from juvenile material (so far) and the type skull has a notorious orbital ratio, as expected of a juvenile. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Could protoceratopsids really run on two legs? I feel that's a little too speculative. Miracusaurs (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Ceratopsia as a whole originated from bipedal ancestors, as well as this specific reconstruction you're refering to being of a juvenile. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are referring to juvenile protoceratopsids, it's not speculative. Facultative bipedality (shown here) in juvies and quadrupedality in adults [14]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Tarchia size

Tarchia size comparison (recently updated).

New size diagram (specimen ZPAL MgD I/113).

There have been some issues when it comes to the size of Tarchia (see the Tarchia page here on Wikipedia and the description of my new size diagram of ZPAL MgD I/113 for some background). What do you think? Conty~enwiki 17:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I find the lack of osteoderms on the large silhouette to be problematic (that specimen does preserve osteoderms on its back: [15]). Shouldn't it also have a more prominent neck? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I can add visible osteoderms (I took for granted that people could imagine them anyway...). I actually started with a somewhat longer neck, but thought it were too long... but that can be fixed as well. Conty~enwiki 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The issue I had wasn't with the length of the neck, but with the lack of differentiation between it and the shoulders/torso. Now that you point it out, though, I do think that elongating the neck probably would be a good idea, since (as far as I know) all known ankylosaurines have necks that are longer than their skulls. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hulsanpes Life Reconstruction

I've illustrated a Hulsanpes running as per the suggested behaviours based on the metatarsals, is this good?

Thank you in advance. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It is probably related to the perspective, but I think the overall anatomy is quite bulky for what is known from Halszkaraptorinae. Probably a lateral restoration could be more effective. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's mostly the shaggy feathering and perspective yes, however the image description does say that it is running, as well as the wikipedia page having a skeletal already. So is it really nessesary when this is a life reconstruction? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Qianzhousaurus life restorations

• 
  FunkMonk's restoration
• 
  PaleoGeekSquared's restoration

Since 2020, the Qianzhousaurus article uses an illustration by PaleoGeekSquared instead of an restoration by FunkMonk that has been there since 2015. Although both life restorations were reviewed, it was not explained why one should replace the other. Perhaps now is the time to discuss this? HFoxii (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of space. To be honest, my version was a bit sloppy, but if the article is expanded, they could probably both be used. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Uncertain bones near M. fragillimus vertebra

According to the caption in the article Maraapunisaurus, this is "Illustration of M. fragillimus fossils, with an alligator femur (A) for scale, drawn in 1884". However, only the neural arch is attributed to M. fragillimus, so the reader may have a logical question: whose big bones it is next to the M. fragillimus vertebra? HFoxii (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Eotyrannus restorations by Nobu Tamura

• 
• 
• 

Without any decent singular depictions of Eotyrannus, I decided to upload Nobu Tamura's restorations of the genus. I think the last one is a speculative depiction of a adult Eotyrannus, it also depicts Hypsilophodon. Any thoughts & criticisms? Monsieur X (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Some sunken fenestrae that could be fixed, but otherwise ok? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Taurovenator

New life restoration of the carcharodontosaurid Taurovenator violantei. How appropriate is it for use in the article? HFoxii (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The background flora is distracting and unnecessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

The plants can be removed, but wouldn't the image be too blank then? The flora depicted was indeed found in the Huincul Formation[16]. HFoxii (talk) 05:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hypsilophodon models

• 
• 

Here's some unreviewed models of Hypsilophodon. Right off the get go I can tell there's multiple issues with the singular model with the tail in the air. Monsieur X (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the model from Australia is bad, I can't see any issues with the Dinosaur Isle one. Dinosaur Isle is the local museum near where the fossils were found, so you can't expect them to be too bad. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hands aside, the Dinosaur Isle one seems to line up pretty well with Greg Paul's skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Linhevenator

New life restoration of troodontid theropod Linhevenator tani (compared with cat). HFoxii (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the second toes be more raised? FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I think this looks pretty good and there's only a few things I have a problem with. I think that the arm's and legs should be spaced out a little more, the legs look a little big and I don't like how the tail is cut off half way, I'd recommend including the entire animal. Also I don't see a reason why the second toes need to be raised. Kingmeatballs (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The illustration looks good, I only suggest including the entire tail. Having the legs spaced out a bit more would be good but it doesn't look like it's possible given the medium the art was created with. We don't know how high the sickle claws would have been raised in most species (retraction in many specimens may just be artifacts of preservation), so they look fine as they are. Luxquine (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Recycled raptors

Kansaignathus

Shri devi

In the name of just getting more genera illustrated, I pulled out some old drawings for a school project, from where I have also reused other illustrations for Wikipedia before, and modified them so they could perhaps be used for dromaeosaurid articles here that lack restorations. I was thinking this one [17] could be Kansaignathus, and this one[18] could be Variraptor. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Kansaignathus could perhaps use a much longer, more Velociraptor-like jaw given its preserved mandible. Probably lips for the Variraptor. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Cool, also I should add if anyone has other contenders for their identities, feel free to suggest, it certainly isn't firmly decided at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it would even make sense to swap the identity of the two? Because the darker individual looks more robust and generic perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Modified the second one to be more in line with Kansaignathus instead. Any issues? FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lythronaxargestes:, any further comments on this one, before I star modifying the other one? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if the upper jaw is a bit too robust? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

A good deal lower/narrower here[19], is it enough? FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that's better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, now updated, and will add it to the article, though any other comments are of course welcome. Any issues with making the other one Variraptor? FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Make sure that you have the manus embedded into the wings. The fingers as they are now look like they're added on/that the remiges are connecting to the wrist and arm instead of the second finger. Luxquine (talk) 01:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess the angle of the primaries on the closest wing make it look like that, I'll try to rotate them or the finger. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've modified the wings of the Kansaignathus. I've also done some modifications to the other drawing[20], but I'm not sure if it would work for Variraptor if it, as the article indicates, belonged to some of the more gracile lineages. And there aren't really many other large bodied, "generic" dromaeosaurs illustrated. Any ideas for what it could be retooled as? Perhaps Shri devi if the snout is modified further? FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I modified the second one (added above) to match Shri devi better. Any issues? FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Mostly looks fine, but is it missing halluces? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Yikes, you're right, will fix! FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I've given it a hallux and some white bars on the tail. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Kurupi Skeletal

Recently an user uploaded an skeletal of Kurupi, initially created by "clumsystiggy" on Twitter (note that the initial creator has allowed people to use it as long as credit is given). Personally I see a few problems with the silhouette. The head looks a little odd especially with the enlarged osteoderms on its neck and the tail seems really fat and way to bendy. Kingmeatballs (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not feeling the tail either. That's one thing that definitely can't be chalked up to soft tissue. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I think that may be intended to be a 3D bend into the background (+z axis) which is probably not a very helpful graphical metaphor in a 2D silhouette. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the tail looks like it is meant to represent a bend in the z axis, so I don't think it's quite as much an issue as it would be if it were bending upwards.Di (they-them) (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Spinosaurus skeletal by Gunnar Bivens

Bivens uploaded this file in May 2020 and apparently it has not been reviewed. I was thinking that this reconstruction might be placed in Discovery and naming, as it has elements of different Spinosaurus specimens, but I think the hand is a bit odd. What do you think? Gallimimus wikipedista. ((talk)) 12:59, 12 September (UTC)

Thanatotheristes

Thanatotheristes life resconstruction

, made this on procreate, added lips, eyes may be a bit too small--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This was made after I found how the one made by the other guy (forgot his name) was slightly in accurate in the eyes being to big and strange lip tissue--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems to defeat the purpose of showing its anatomy by shrouding it in darkness? FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay fixed--Bubblesorg (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The single projecting tooth is extremely strange. Lips would probably not cover that much. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

wait, but mark wittons blog showed thishttps://twitter.com/markwitton/status/956915850560376832--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not anti-lip, I'm saying that the lips look unnatural. Look at any lizard with its mouth open and you can see that the lips don't fully enclose the tips of the teeth when the mouth is open. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Pine in Nanuqsaurus habitat

The image File:Nanuqsaurus NT small.jpg is used on the page Nanuqsaurus, and it has pines and other conifers in the background. I know that these trees coexisted with Nanuqsaurus in terms of timeframe, but contemporary pinus are not native in Alaska. Did pine exist in the Prince Creek Formation during the Late Cretaceous period? Di (they-them) (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The Prince Creek Formation was dominated in at least one area by Parataxodium wigginsii. Pinus has not been observed in the formation from what I understand. This study covers a number of plants found in the formation, with no mention of pinaceae. Luxquine (talk) 01:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, how correct is the depiction of a feathered Nanuqsaurus in general? In my opinion, it might just be a paleoart meme. At least according to phylogenetic bracketing, Nanuqsaurus was scaly. HFoxii (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's just a palaeoart meme considering how many palaeontologists championed the idea of feathered large tyrannosaurs for years, and many still do. In any case, I don't think we know enough yet, it's not as if "completely scaly Tyrannosaurus" is a settled idea either. As for the background, perhaps we could just remove the trees? Or isolate the dinosaur? FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yuanchuavis kompsosoura

Yuanchuavis kompsosoura

I forced myself to not spend very much time on this (working on getting faster at producing art) so I'll admit this is a rush job. Feel free to critique. Luxquine (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the animal can be brightened. It's hard to see. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe tone down the background somehow, but yeah, it could need some contrast to make it stand out more at thumbnail size. As for accuracy, the "official" restoration[21] shows the shorter tail feathers overlapping the long ones, but you have the opposite, any reason for that? FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, I’ll see about fixing the contrast on that. As for the tail feathers, if you read the study the R1 rectrices are the longest feathers, which would make them the top pair at this angle. The study never mentions the feathers being any different in order than all other known feathered theropods, so I’ve reconstructed it based on what I know rather mimicking a possible mistake on the part of the paleoartist who did the reconstruction you’ve linked. If I missed anything important in the study that says otherwise please let me know so I can fix it. Luxquine (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I’ve lightened the background and added some more contrast. Let me know if anything else needs changing. Luxquine (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Dakotadon restoration

Dakotadon restoration

Dakotadon restoration, how accurate is it?--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it missing its ear? Luxquine (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

It shouldnt be, unless I published the wrong copy--Bubblesorg (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Now can you see it?

Er, is the ear that tiny black speck behind the eye? That's not where the ear goes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

So where does it go?--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Ozraptor

Recently I was able to find time to reconstruct my older (and pretty garbage) Ozraptor reconstruction. That's about it any thoughts? (left and right ones are the updated pair). Kingmeatballs 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are some really odd, Gon-like proportions on the small one. What are they based on? I'm not sure it's serious enough to use here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you further detail why you think the proportions are wack? Kingmeatballs 1:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)