Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Manual 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. 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 encyclopedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Criticism of restorations should avoid nitpicking of minor subjective or hypothetical details and should be phrased in a way that is respectful and constructive. 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

Ardetosaurus (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

Ardetosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

For unclear reasons, the right hind foot appears to be rotated outwards, such that not much of the first claw is visible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor revisions: the base of the tail should be raised slightly as there is an upward kink (see Vidal paper), or the tail is a bit too narrow at the base. The out turning of the rear foot also obscures that it looks too columnar, the toes should extend further anteriorly. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Kink added to tail, toes adjusted. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Various Dinosaurs (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

• 
  Argentinosaurus
• 
  Ceratosaurus
• 
  Eotriceratops
• 
  Massospondylus
• 
  Patagotitan
• 
  Therizinosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention in the publication describing Patagotitan that it had osteoderms. I associate osteoderms more with saltasauroids than longkosaurs. Therefore, they should be removed in both Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan. Aventadoros (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Mendozasaurus had osteoderms definitively so their presence on colossosaurs is good. However, Ceratosaurus and Massospondylus definitely did not have osteoderms, so the dark spots that appear to mimic osteoderms or feature scales should be removed. They are acceptable to leave on the very center of the spine in Cerato, but should be much less promiment (likely subdermal) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Mendozasaurus had osteoderms, but as I mentioned earlier neither in Patagotitan nor Futalognkosaurus were found. Can osteoderms therefore be attributed to all colossosaurs? Besides, the systematics of Titanosauria is very unstable and it is difficult to establish good affinities between taxa within this clade. Aventadoros (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Mendozasaurus is by definition a lognkosaur, and has almost always been found to be a colossosaur including in all recent studies. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There isn't currently evidence to definitively justify giving every titanosaur osteoderms, but support for this feature seems to be increasingly common, e.g. probable basal titanosaur osteoderms from the Açu Formation (?Tiamat). Certainly the logic that "they haven't been described in taxon x and should therefore be removed" is not fully sound. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have a problem with osteoderms on Patagotitan or Argentinosaurus, but they should definitely be removed on Massospondylus and I would also recommend removing them on Ceratosaurus. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Osteoderms removed on Ceratosaurus; feature scales reduced on Massospondylus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceratosaurus is known to a have had a single row of osteoderms on the midline of the back, but there's no evidence of osteoderms anywhere else on the animal. Regarding Therizinosaurus, I think it should probably be a little more upright and have a longer neck. The degree of feathering is controversial, but I'm agnostic on the matter. We don't actually know the exact body proportions of Therizinosaurus, so taxa like Nothronychus and Neimongosaurus are the most effective proxies and they appear to have had very long necks at least as long as their tails, if not longer. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Adjusted Therizinosaurus proportions. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Scaled to the same skull length, the eyes and lacrimal crests of Ceratosaurus are too far forward, even compared to C. "dentisulcatus". It is also missing the fourth digit of the hand. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Adjusted crests, added fourth digit to hand. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The eye of Eotriceratops seems situated too far dorsally, such that the socket seems to be going into the horn. What was your reference for the form of the frill? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The skull was probably based on Fadeno's reconstruction.

[1] Aventadoros (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct. It is based on Fadeno's reconstruction. Please see this image for reference - if I should move the eye down, please advise on how exactly I should do that. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Major revisions the sauropods and Ceratosaurus both look acceptable, and Massospondylus is reviewed further below. However, the skull of Eotriceratops needs keratin for the beak, which would widen the snout in all directions removing some of the oddness of shape. The top, front and bottom should all be given a thick margin. The tail also appears to taper too sharply behind the pelvis, and the front limbs are too slender.

The Therizinosaurus should have more prominence above the shoulder instead of the pelvis, which makes the slope of the back look too horizontal. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Beak widened, tail and forelimbs thickened in Eotriceratops.

Posture adjusted to be more vertical in Therizinosaurus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Needs revisions @UnexpectedDinoLesson: The dentary of Ceratosaurus is way too robust. It should be much more tapered anteriorly rather than being the same size along its entire length. For Therizinosaurus, the fourth toe on the foot should be on the lateral side of the feet, not the medial side. All other reconstructions are good to use, per discussion above. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yuanyanglong (UDL)

And here's mine.

• 

The head seems a little too large on this one relative to the skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Head size reduced. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Revisions: the eye is now too large, taking up much of the orbit. The top of the head looks too angular compared to the skull (and tissue generally smooths contours). The primaries also don't appear to articulate with the second finger but instead are somehow "floating" on the inside of the hand or articulated to the wrong hand. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reduced the eye and smoothed out the head. I'm not sure what you mean about the feathers... the primaries are articulating from the second finger. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me. The eye looks good, and I don't see any issues with the wing feathers. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:57, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Yingshanosaurus

• 
  Skeletal
• 
  Size chart
• 
  Osteoderms

Skeletal reconstruction of the oft-overlooked stegosaur Yingshanosaurus, known from a reasonably complete skeleton. Unfortunately this lack of attention means effectively nothing has been published on it since its 1994 description. However, it does seem to be referrable to the "stegosaurid" part of the tree rather than "huayangosaurid" side. Most of the material is at least figured in one view, except for some vertebrae (shown in lighter grey). None of the neck/skull is known, so this is based largely on Jiangjunosaurus. With this skeletal in mind, it may be worth revisiting the two life restorations of Yingshanosaurus on Commons (Image by UnexpectedDinoLesson and Image by Ddinodan). Comments welcome as always. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

How did you decide on the orientation of the shoulder spike? Also if Ca2 was not figured then how did you infer the extent of the missing neural spine? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The parascapular spine could just as easily be directed upwards. Or directly out. There doesn't seem to be evidence either way. This way it obscures the vertebral column less. As for Ca2, the description states that it is missing the top of the neural spine, so the exact amount is speculative. The preservation extent/quality is not commented on for the other caudals. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: after some additional reading I'm a little more confident in this orientation of the scapular spine. It's more or less a flattened 'splate', and the description notes an apparent 'platform-like' surface where it would attach to the torso (and this is how the CV mount reconstructs it). Also adding a size chart and line drawing of the osteoderms. -SlvrHwk (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass on skeletal diagrams - Well-researched and likely to be accurate, although I can't independently verify against the original description.

Pending clarification Pass per below - Is there a source for the size estimate? I believe past consensus is that scaling from known material is OR. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

D. Glut's "Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia" estimates the length at 5 m using the mounted exhibition skeleton, which is a near-perfect match with my results (and I am well aware of the consensus regarding OR in scale charts - I originally wasn't planning on uploading it but then I found this source). I'm working on overhauling the page because it's currently in a pretty rough shape. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Skeletal added to article. We should also look at the current reconstructions to see if they need any improvements.

Aventadoros (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions for Dan's, since it seems to follow the huayangosaurid, not stegosaurid, bauplan and differs in details of known anatomy (including the plates' shapes). Per SlvrHwk's conclusion the scapular spine could also be flipped.

Minor revisions for UDL's, which is anatomically much closer but could still be tweaked for closer alignment with the skeletal (including the scapular spine). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is wrong with the plates on Dan's - they might be a little bigger than I would do it but that could be attributed to extra keratin covering. The limb/body proportions look pretty close, just with a different articulation for the pectoral girdle. The neck should probably be lengthened - of course it is speculative on my skeletal but there's currently no reason to think it wouldn't have had ~13 cervical vertebrae (more or less consistent with Stegosaurus, Hesperosaurus, Jiangjunosaurus, Kentrosaurus, etc...). Same comments go for UDL's. The torso also looks a little wonky, and there's not really a defined coracoid region. Agree regarding the scapular spines. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My thinking was that Dan's caudal plates are too spike-like, i.e. with narrow bases, but if you think it's fine I'll defer to you. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, the two plates over the pelvis do look comparatively narrower, which might have been based on Huayangosaurus? -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Ddinodan and UnexpectedDinoLesson: your input would be appreciated here so the image(s) can be added to the page. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Body proportions adjusted to better match the skeletal diagram, parascapular spine repositioned. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement! I'll add it to the page now. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to be clingy, but shouldn't the "cheeks" in the open mouth in the above skeletal reconstruction be reduced? And could someone more knowledgeable explain this issue of cheeks in Ornithischia to me? 2A01:110F:304:E500:6570:A855:2B0D:5ED7 (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Lishulong (UDL)

Please review for accuracy:

• 

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Pass I see no issues with this reconstruction. This taxon is only known from the neck and skull, which appear to be proportioned correctly here. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Add image to Azilal Formation

I present this image for the Azilal Formation. It represents the recurring storms of the western tethys. The dinosaur is Berberosaurus liassicus, It could also be used in Berberosaurus if they allow it.

Leonardo HerSan (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The restoration of Berbersaurus as being so similar to Ceratosaurus is speculative, but no more so than any other restoration given how poor the material is, so I'd say its fine. It has four fingers, which is appropriate for a basal averostran as far as I'm aware. The piece itself it very good, so I don't see why it couldn't be used. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Pending clarification - What's the evidence for Berberosaurus living in a coastal environment? A quick skim of the formation page suggests that it was found in alluvial deposits. Pass as a restoration of Berberosaurus, utility for the overall formation is unclear. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The formation page definitely paints it as being majorly coastal, although the Berberosaurus article seems to imply this varies between layers and Berberosaurus might be from a later more terrestrial segment? The wording is a bit unclear to me. Either way, it's definitely appropriate for the formation at large if we simply pass it off as a generic theropod in other use cases. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually the formation was always close to the sea. Regarding the berberosaurus, I tried to base it on eoablesiaurus and ceratosaurus. Leonardo HerSan (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass per discussion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Asiatyrannus & Allosaurus anax

Hello! Here's my life restorations for both Asiatyrannus and Allosaurus anax, two of a few black & white sketches I've done in the past year. While Asiatyrannus is known from decent material, I'm 100% aware of how fragmentary Allosaurus anax is. So if there's not enough material for this animal to have artwork on the official page, then I understand. With that said, please let me know what you think, and I hope everyone had a wonderful new year!

Life restoration of Asiatyrannus xui

Hypothetical life restoration of Allosaurus anax

SpinoDragon145 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The compositions/poses of your images are nice in general. I'm not good with judging accuracy, and others will certainly have more to say, but isn't the neck much too thick in the Allosaurus? The head looks gigantic, too? And shouldn't there be more teeth in the lower jaw? As for the Asiatyrannus, what is going on with the left foot – the middle toe seems to hover behind the foot (and is too short, too; it should be the longest digit). The row of scutate scales on the metatarsus appears to spiral around to the back of the foot? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the appearance of the far foot of Asiatyrannus is because of the shading, for me it appears correct with the middle toe (the highest in the drawing) as the longest. However, the other comments feel justified to me so they needs revisions before use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The left foot of Allosaurus being in perfect anterior view seems strange to me - it feels like it would require dislocation at the ankle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Diplodocus Updates

I wasn't very satisfied with the appearance of my old Diplodocus skeletal so I've reposed it to be more in line with other depictions of the animal. Does this look okay, and are there any other changes that need to be made? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 23:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Is sacrum wedging accounted for? Also curious about the shape of the posteriormost preserved chevron in CM 94 - is that the actual shape or anterior breakage? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Overall, it looks pretty good to me. A few assorted comments, in no particular order: Gastralia were probably absent in eusauropods. The alleged gastralia from Apatosaurus yahnahpin have been viewed skeptically, e.g. Fechner and Gößling 2014, and there is otherwise no evidence for their presence in any eusauropod. Several of the bones are less complete than depicted here, especially dorsal 10 (which should probably be reconstructed with a more anteriorly inclined neural spine, see Gilmore 1932). The neural spines of the anterior cervicals are also reconstructed, though this is only apparent from Hatcher's text, not the figures. CM 94 has a second pair of pathologically fused caudals (mounted as caudals 24 and 25) in addition to the figured pathological pair (mounted as caudals 20 and 21). The transition from the sacrum to the caudals looks a bit wonky to me. Also, see Vidal's thesis for some consideration of sacral wedging in Diplodocus in general and CM 94 in particular. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the sacral wedging to follow that shown for CM 94. The chevron shape in the figured pair of fused vertebrae for CM 94 seems to be genuine based on Hatcher's writing. I've removed the gastralia and I've included unknown regions for dorsals 2, 9, and 10 (and changed the neural spine shape of 10 a bit). I've made a note about the restoration on Cv 3-5 in the file description, but not knowing the extent of this reconstruction, I'm not really sure how to show this in the image. I've modified Cd 24-25 to appear more coalesced, not sure if this is sufficient or if I should try to make this more prominent. Is there anything else that needs to be fixed? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. I haven't been able to find a photo that I can share that shows the fusion of Cd24-25 clearly, but it's similar to the degree of fusion between Cd20-21. Perhaps it's a moot point in the absence of publicly available photos that show it clearly. Likewise for the cervical vertebrae—it's frustrating that Hatcher's paper has such misleading figures! A couple of other things I notice are that the fibula is shown overlapping the femoral condyles laterally, which doesn't make any sense, and that there should be at least one more chevron present anteriorly. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I added the extra chevron (approximated from the shape of the one immediately posterior to it) and I've tried to make the fusion of Cd24-25 a bit more obvious and reposed the leg. How do these updates look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Going to tag Ornithopsis to see if theres anything else needed? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

My apologies for the delay in responding (and thanks to IJReid for the reminder); I've had a lot going on this week. Thank you for making the changes. I don't have anything else to add, so I think this is good to go. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass by consensus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Heterodontosaurus, and others

• 
  Heterodontosaurus
• 
  Plateosaurus
• 
  Carcharodontosaurus
• 
  Mamenchisaurus

Heterodontosaurus is a new upload - please review for accuracy.

The rest are stylistic overhauls of old artwork. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The Mamenchisaurus needs identification at the species level, especially given the different proportions of the species and the probable mutligeneric nature of the taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - The halluces of Heterodontosaurus are quite a bit larger and more distally positioned than skeletals would suggest. The torso also seems too bulky overall. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• It seems unlikely that Heterodontosaurus would have completely scaly skin except for the quills sticking out, especially considering this specimen:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  There is a "furry" texture going down the back under the quills, is this not enough? Admittedly it could be blended better. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It's of course speculative at this point, but I don't think there's any indication it wouldn't be entirely furry from the evidence we have from relatives. By the time that Tianyulong specimen I linked is published, this restoration will be outdated, so probably best to be ahead already. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think these pieces needs revisions. Comments by FunkMonk about Heterodontosaurus are suggestions and not definitive, and I don't know enough to say if theres specifics with Carcharodontosaurus that are incorrect so it is worth a second look. The Plateosaurus has a hip region that is too deep (the mid-belly should be deepest and its appropriate right now), the upper arm should be as robust as the forearm, the second finger should be longer than the third, and the feet are too deep and not quite elongate enough. Levi's Glacialisaurus below could be a good reference for the first, second, and third points. The Mamenchisaurus needs a species designation before it can be judged further due to the large differences between species. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I'd call it a bit more than just suggestions; we also have to follow published precedents, and I simply have never seen a heterodontosaur restored like this, with the feather quills coming straight out of otherwise scaly areas (yes, I see fuzz at the base in some areas, but not on the head and tail). And as stated, that new Tianyulong will make the restoration inaccurate as soon as it's published. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Furry integument extended, halluces raised, torso made less bulky. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks better to me. FunkMonk (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass or minor revisions on Carcharodontosaurus. Anatomy aligns well with the Auditore skeletal in Ibrahim et al. (2020), except the arms are noticeably smaller (but within reasonable variation for carcharodontosaurids). I'm not sure the plantar pads are correct given how angular they look, but could be convinced otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Hip region on Plateosaurus made shallower, upper arm more robust, repositioned fingers and feet. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Ahvaytum (UDL)

• 

Here's mine. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - As correctly noted above, there are proportional issues with this restoration, including a torso that is too deep and a skull that is too small. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Seconded, this piece needs revisions before it should be used. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Head made larger, tail lengthened, torso shallower. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass - Changes check out for me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Nqwebasaurus

• 

Based on skeletal from De Klerk et al. 2000 Palaeotaku (talk) 14:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - A significant improvement over the current restoration. To be a pedant - the hand claws should probably be more elongate than shown here (see Fig 12F of Choiniere et al. 2012), mediolaterally compressed unguals being a diagnostic character of the genus. The skeletal in De Klerk et al. is not particularly rigorous but that is a genuine feature, not an artistic artefact. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass after requested changes above were made. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Alnashetri

• 

Current Alnashetri life reconstruction on its page by @Levi bernardo. I bring this up because the reconstruction may be outdated. A paper from 2024 regarding alvarezsaur body size evolution cites a conference abstract of an Alnashetri specimen which is currently being described by Makovicky that fundamentally changes the taxon's appearance both due to its revised phylogenetic placement and aspects of the new specimen's skeletal material. Furthermore, the paper has a life reconstruction of all the reviewed alvarezsaurs, and Alnashetri is reconstructed based on the new specimen, anatomical changes and all. So it does not appear to be breaking any embargo terms as far as I am aware. The Patagopelta page has a similar thing going on where yet-to-be described material is referenced in published papers.

I inquire then should the reconstruction remain up on the page until the paper that will actually describe the specimen is finally published or should it be removed in advance and the page simply left reconstruction-less until the paper describing the new Alnashetri specimen is published? Tyrantar123 (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the best approach, until the new specimen is actually figured and described, would be to keep the restoration on the page. The caption can be updated for now to be more similar to the one on the Patagopelta page (i.e. "Speculative restoration of Alnashetri as an alvarezsaurid"). -SlvrHwk (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we should remove it just because the reconstruction appears to not have feathers, and is thus innaccurate. I assume the artist did not intend to give that impression, because there are aspects of the work that could possibly be interpreted as feathers. I think we should probably say at the least that it needs revisions and take it down in the interim. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Levi intended this as a WIP before the review section got archived. Better to keep it unused, methinks, until the new material is described. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, needs feathers. Also if it does eventually get revised with feathers, someone should clean up the scanner noise. Skye McDavid (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to work on this draw in the future days. Indeed this is just an eteeernal WIP, at the time when i drew this the phylogenetically affinities of Alnashetri was close to Bonapartenykus and Linhenykus, and that was the main reason for just recicle the Albinikus main lineart and I only just modify the Leg for this one, but for that, any heavy modificación on the original draw will be easy to do. I already knew months before that Alnashetri was more basal and with a very different apareance, i will made the modifications on my draw based on the published paper about alvarezaurs phylogeny

(Meso et al. 2024). And i will aply your recommendations and comments. Thanks! Levi bernardo (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Three unreviewed works

Longipteryx

• 

• By @Caz41985:. Seems only used in Spanish Wikipedia. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Approved. It looks great, I have no notes. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions: The pmx teeth of L. chaoyangensis are much larger than the dentary teeth: [3] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions: I think the size of the teeth may be an individual trait and I don't mind if they are similar in size. However, based on known specimens, I think the dentary teeth should be closer to the premaxilla teeth so that when the jaws are closed they overlap. I think this skull reconstruction and the conterslab photos of the BMNHCPh930B specimen show this well. @Caz41985: could you check this comment and make corrections to this reconstruction? Other than the minor errors, I like it very much and it would be worth adding it to the Longipteryx article.

• 
• 

Aventadoros (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Ilokelesia

• 
• 
  previously used version
• 
  Fixed version

• Added by IP user without review, author is @Odhránt: and assume who added by themselves. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  As far as I know, there is no evidence for osteoderms in abelisaurs since the integument of Carnotaurus has been re-interpreted, but I'd say that falls under minor revisions. It's a little bothersome that there's so much white space above the animal, but that's an easy fix. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  Hello, and yes, you are correct regarding the osteoderms. I will remove these from my paleoart and I will also revise the feet and remove the amount of white space above. Is that all that I need to revise or do you suggest any other changes? I'm open to suggestions :) Odhránt (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

  Pass - Looks great, no other notes! A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions - It looks like it has didactyl feet. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

oh I completely missed that. Fixing now. Odhránt (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me, although someone should merge these files on Commons. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Chilantaisaurus

• 

• Added by @MasterDoot: without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

  The leg proportions are correct, which is basically all we know from this taxon. Regarding the rest of the body, this isn't any more or less speculative than FunkMonk's reconstruction. I'm not sure what the paleoenvironment of the Ulansuhai Formation is supposed to have been, but I think the Altai Mountains are supposed to have existed by this time, so the background is probably fine. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The plants are bit odd, if this is a real background I would not recommend it. Grass adapted to dry places had not evolved. Grass was not very diverse when Chilantaisaurus lived. --Bubblesorg (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the grass should be removed, otherwise this image doesn't have much scientific validity. Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

The postorbital crests should probably be smaller. 2601:197:380:2850:E8A:B5B:FCD8:27D0 (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

We have no cranial material from this taxon. I think the speculative reconstruction of the skull is fine. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• Something weird happening where the toes connect with the foot. And the arms are extremely robust, and one also connects to the body in a weird way. Some kind of 3D mesh deformations. Looks kind of off-balance as well. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Chadititan

Follows the published material and Overosaurus.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Comment—looks nice. Just wanted to point out this line from the paper: It is worthy to mention that no single osteoderm was found in the area. Since no osteoderms were found in association with other rinconsaurians, it is possible to speculate that they were absent in these titanosaurs (although see this relevant abstract). -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - While it looks awkward in the paper's silhouette, the strong slanting of the neural arch and the orientation of the prezygapophyses in the anterior caudals suggests that the tail should be more downturned from the long axis of the sacrum than it is here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:07, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

We do not have the sacrum of this animal, so the relative angle and articulation of the tail to the sacrum is unknown. This articulation follows Overosaurus, which does have both elements known. Ddinodan (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The downturn I am referring to does not occur at the sacrocaudal junction but within the anterior caudal series, as is the case for what is now Arrudatitan: [4] The paper describes the tail anatomy of Chadititan as being similar to Arrudatitan but does not mention Overosaurus there, so I don't think it's quite as good of a model for the tail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Chadititan (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

Chadititan

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - Compared to other rinconsaurian/aeolosaurin reconstructions, the tail seems too short. I'm not sure why the paper reconstructs it that way, but clearly the caudal vertebrae preserved across the different individuals don't form a continuous series. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Tail lengthened. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Pass Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Rajasaurus

Drawing of Rajasaurus Narmadensis.

Please do tell of any shortcomings, thanks.

P.S. Do apologize for not drawing the full body.

अथर्व कॉल (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions - There is no evidence for regularly arranged osteoderms in abelisaurids. The body and forelimb are also generally a bit lacking in detail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll see what I can do, as this was done on paper. अथर्व कॉल (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Sauroposeidon 2016-2025

Sauroposeidon

After near a decade without been modified, updated, or retouched i feel a necessity for revamp my draw of Sauroposeidon, Here Is a progress of a preliminary version of the Illustration. Please note that this version is scanned at a lower resolution than the final version, and that the posture of the tail, neck, and skull will be altered in the final version.

Any comments or suggestions are very welcome. Levi bernardo (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it looks nice I think its good to use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Two-fingered therizinosaur

While the paper is due to be released at any hour now, I'll leave this illustration here. The timing is actually quite insane, as I first learned about the taxon around 2016, started this drawing in 2019, and thought of finishing it for good like 4 days ago! Initially I was going to upload the illustration as Two-fingered therizinosaurid Restoration, but apparently our fella got named. Following the news article [5], the reported material is essentially the same that has been around for years [6], including the forelimbs, pelvis, and some vertebrae. I couldn't contain my excitement! PaleoNeolitic (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Because this animal is not published (and thus is not figured), I would hesitate to make a reconstruction of it. None of those old photos really get the material in any sort of decent lighting or angle (not to mention how we can't tell the proportions of the material from those photos), so I would hesitate to consider this an applicable reconstruction. It almost constitutes original research in my view.

Since we don't know its relationships with other therizinosaurs (or if the authors even posit any), the anatomy is a large unknown, but based on what's here, there isn't much incorporation of anatomy known from other Asian therizinosaurs such as their pelvic wedge.

I would recommend waiting for the publication to release, incorporating their interpretations of the material and its relationships to other therizinosaurs, and adjusting your reconstruction from there. Ddinodan (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Technically a very nice piece like always, but I agree we can't really review or comment on much until the paper comes out. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with previous comments. Without a paper, we can't say anything about this didactyl therizinosaur. Aventadoros (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

In agreement with the other commenters for the moment - when the paper comes out we can properly review it. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• One thing that can maybe be said already from the available images is that since the claw-keratin is actually preserved, I wonder if it's restored too long here. FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The Duonychus paper has now been formally published.[7] Aventadoros (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The paper does seem to restore the claws much less thin and long, so should be followed here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

• Sick news! 🗣 The paper is finally here! I've adjusted the hand claws to satisfy the restoration produced by the authors. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this can probably be used as a guideline for out therizinosaur restorations in general, some of which have their claws a bit too far on the long, thin side. FunkMonk (talk) 08:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Minor/major revisions -After going over the material myself and seeing it figured by a few people, this off proportionally and anatomically.

- The dorsals are preserved in near perfect articulation, with the zygopophyses matching up almost perfectly. The hump-like shape this makes is not present in this reconstruction.

- The pubis is either not scaled properly, or is the basis of scaling; in which case, the rest of the anatomy is disproportionate

- The sacral series suggest a slight uptick at the base of the tail, similar to what is seen in some sauropods; again, not present

On a more minor anatomical note (not anything preserved or needing changes), the neck is very long and noodly with a strong S-curve; I don't think this is present in any Therizinosaurs we have the cervical series from.

I don't know why this reconstruction was added to the page before being reviewed, but it should probably not be there until adjustments are made. Ddinodan (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

After going into the task of superimposing the skeletal and figured elements (separately) onto the illustration, elements such as the back and caudal regions were, in fact, missing the uplift or uptick shape. Though the illustration was made using the limited proportions of pictures [8] prior to the paper, the arms, neck, and others, do match both skeletal and figured fossils. I think that the amount of tissue/feathers or leg proportions may give the wrong impression of the arms being shorter than they should be, which is not the case. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Overlaying the material on the reconstruction myself I can see the arms and dorsals are similar in scale, but the body depth due to the hips and pubis are not reflected here. The body depth is not reflective of the material scaled together.

This is all based on the scaling provided in the paper, and the paper skeletal. If we are to follow their interpretation with their skeletal in mind, the body depth is not congruent, nor are some unpreserved (and thus nonobjective) the length of the legs and neck. The head is also massive when the material is scaled together with the perspective of the paper skeletal. Ddinodan (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Uuhmm, I think this is starting to take a far-fetched, nitpicking side. Like I said, the most important areas and figured fossils are matching the proportions by the authors. Considering that most of the skeleton is reconstructed, I don't see why the unknown proportions should be of strict interest. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

You are correct, they aren’t as important.

The proportions of the figured material do not match however, and this is what’s important; again, the depth of the hips is not congruent when the recon is scaled to the arms and dorsals. Specifically the pubis is not nearly deep enough.

The proportions of known material not matching the known material is not a nitpick. Ddinodan (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

To be more specific on the known material, here is what I mean visualized. [9]. This isn't too say the paper skeletal should be followed 1:1 since it has its own issues (such as constricting its hypothetical trachea and esophagus' with its own scapulacoracoid), but is useful to show the material laterally figured in-scale with each other. Ddinodan (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Duonychus (UDL)

Duonychus

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions - Claws are way too long, even with the keratin sheath. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

They're also far too straight. The spike feathers on the tail are a questionable design choice as well. Ddinodan (talk) 01:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions - see my comments on the anatomy for the above reconstruction. Ddinodan (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Curved claws, softened feathers, adjusted posture to more closely match proportions of skeletal diagram. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Comments: This follows the oversized pelvis in GAT's skeletal diagram, which isn't ideal but I'm not sure it can be deemed 'inaccurate' for Wiki purposes. The smoothly curved back seems at odds with the clearly 'hunchbacked' dorsal vertebrae. While this could be excused as excess soft tissue, I imagine following the skeletal more closely here would more clearly illustrate the animal's unusual anatomy. The hand claws seem to protrude posteriorly at an odd angle, rather than medially. Finally, it's difficult to tell, but the arms may be folded to tightly; please double check with fig.4B in the description paper. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Duonychus tsogtbaatari

follows the published material, Nanshiungosaurus, Nothronychus and Segnosaurus.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Pass — looks to be a good match for the animal's unusual 'posture' and proportions. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Imperobator (UDL)

Imperobator

Finally got around to updating Imperobator as an unenlagiine, please review for accuracy. Should point out the image on the Wikipedia page is currently labeled "Hypothetical life restoration as a generalized paravian" which should probably now be changed. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

To my understanding, the revision also involved reinterpretation of the foot as possessing an ordinary if lightly curved killing claw rather than the original flat-footed arrangement. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:52, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Added raised toe claw. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me. We literally only have the foot, and the rest looks like a standard unenlagiine. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Duonychus size chart

• 
  Duonychus size

Scale chart of Duonychus — GAT's skeletal is, for the most part, consistent with the published measurements. However, the pelvis is significantly oversized, and this is corrected in my silhouette. It appears Ddinodan's reconstruction also properly takes this into account. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it should for the weird taxon it is so a pass from me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:11, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Yuanmouraptor jinshajiangensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Good looks like a generic tetanuran with a skull matching the figures. Nothing to suggest. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yuanmouraptor (UDL)

Yuanmouraptor

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Noasaurus

Extracted this from a drawing I made last year since some people are expanding the Noasaurus page and noted that it didn't have good life recons on wiki. Olmagon (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions The perspective on the right leg looks a little wonky, but I don't have any issues with the overall anatomy. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

That's probably because the right foot was added like a year later than the rest of the thing (if you see the original drawing I extracted this from you'll see that it wasn't there) and I had Frankenstein'ed it on using a copy of the left foot. Decided to back and actually draw a new foot on now. Olmagon (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

There is something odd about the musculature where the upper and lower leg connects. Is there a mounted skeleton or something the pose was drawn after to check for comparison (looks like a very specific pose)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

The pose isn't based on anything in particular it's just running (in the drawing I took this from it's chasing after prey). If you point out what exactly is odd I could try fixing it. Olmagon (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I've done some quick edits here, based on featherless ostriches etc:[10] The main things are that the skin-flap connecting the body to the thigh seems to overlap the knee, which it probably shouldn't, so I've painted that out, along with much of the front contour of the thigh (perhaps removed too much, but you get the picture). The back part of the thigh also seemed to bulge too much, so I've made that slimmer, and made the tail look more connected to the thigh by the musculature. I also trimmed the footpads of the planted foot, which are much thicker than on the lifted foot. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Just made the same edits and updated it. Olmagon (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Cool, looks better to me. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Chilantaisaurus (FunkMonk)

Chilantaisaurus tashuikouensis

Please review for accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.22.87 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Added to review by IP user under the vague reasoning "I'm not entirely sure about the life restoration". The image has been reviewed, albeit back in 2008. FunkMonk do you have comments? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Not other than it was originally meant to show Neovenator, but later retooled as Chilantaisaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Cienciargentina

Cienciargentina

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This has a few areas for revision imo. For specifics, the hind feet are drawn very columnar here without any toes beyond the claws, and the left foot looks weirdly out-turned. On more general features, the torso feels very deep and boxy, which doesn't 'feel' right but is hard to quantify. Maybe others have more quantitative thoughts? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Made torso less "boxy", adjusted toes. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Cienciargentina sanchezi

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 22:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I like the look of it so I would say pass tentatively, though I have yet to see a fully-body illustration of the material to really compare with other rebbachisaurs proportionally. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:52, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

For me looks good. By the way, could you also make a Cathartesaura reconstruction, another rebbachisaurid from Huincul Formation? This sauropod hasn't any good images. Aventadoros (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Yulong mini

• 
  Yulong

Happened to be drawing this taxon and decided to post it to wiki. Before anyone says the wing and tail feathers are too short, that was done intentionally since the individual shown here is a juvenile restored after the specimen figured in the description paper rather than a hypothetical adult. Olmagon (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Sciurumimus

• 
  Sciurumimus

Restored after the holotype so it’s a juvenile individual rather than some hypothetical adult. Olmagon (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Various Dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy.

• 
  Albertosaurus
• 
  Lusotitan
• 
  Tenontosaurus
• 
  Emausaurus
• 
  Nigersaurus
• 
  Navaornis

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the proportions of Albertosaurus, the legs especially seem very thick. Tenontosaurus also does not match most skeletal diagrams and mounts I've seen, and I'm curious what reference you used for Lusotitan and Emausaurus. I'd say the first two definitely need revisions, the last two I'm not sure about yet. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The leg proportions of the Albertosaurus are a little off, so it needs major revisions. The femur should be shorter in relation to the tibia and metatarsals. The Nigersaurus is good to use as far as I can tell. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The Navaornis is good to use for me. Aventadoros (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Irritator challengeri

Main references: skeletal reconstruction made by randomdinos and the skull reconstruction present on Schade et al. (2023) made by Olof Moleman.

Life restoration of the Brazillian spinosaurid Irritator challengeri

Sauroarchive (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Some revisions needed

Looks great overall, but I have a few points, mostly about the head.

Strong suggestion: So far as we can tell, spinosaurines don't seem to have as pronounced brows as baryonychines seem to have. Baryonychines have a rugose boss there that spinosaurines don't seem to. Though we don't have a lot of material. So perhaps more data in the future might show otherwise. The frontals are abraded on the sides, but the postorbital is nicely intact. And it doesn't show any obvious rugose boss. You've reconstructed it with a keratin brow here. It's cool and doesn't seem entirely impossible. But it is pure speculation and might be less likely since there's little to no rugosity there on the bone. And showing it without pronounced brows would make it better represent what we know about spinosaurines and Irritator.

Suggestion: Sadly we don't have most of the crest, so any shape is speculative. In the paper I reconstructed it very minimally to show it might be immature. I based the shape on Baryonyx for the most part as it's one of the better preserved ones. Here it seems you kept to my reconstructed outline. If it had a keratin crest, then it could have extended a bit beyond the bone. So, I don't think this crest is wrong perse, but potentially it could be larger. Not a deal breaker tho.

Needs fixing: Where the neck attaches to the top of the skull that doesn't seem to be correct and should be moved back a bit. Right now, the jaw muscles seem to merge with the neck muscles in a smooth transition. While we do not have the top of the parietal and supraoccipital, we do have the rest of the braincase and the base of the supraoccipital that gives us the angle of the missing part. The parietal meets the supraoccipital behind where the ear is now. Which is also where the neck muscles attach. So the area from behind the eye to the ear would not be that bulbous. This is probably the only issue that absolutely needs to be fixed, since it directly contradicts the known material.

Suggestion: Outside the skull we don't have any material that's definitely Irritator. The other spinosaurine material might be Irritator but we can't be sure at this time. But personally I think the hip dip is kinda speculative. The now likely destroyed pelvis from the area I don't think was well preserved enough to say clearly if it had a dip or not. Early reconstructions based on that certainly didn't give it a dip like Ichthyovenator. Based on North African spinosaurines it seems that the dorsal spines could have varied wildly with some very different shapes. A "normal" row of spines might be the safer option, since we don't know if the pelvis had damaged spines, and we don't know if it was Irritator.

Comments: The paddle tail seems reasonable and is fine. The only good tails from spinosaurines seem to have paddles. Lips is good so that it creates a mouth seal and can breathe through the nose. I thought the ear looked a little low, but comparing it to the skull, it seems to be in the correct place. Though maybe it's because the squamosal is a bit hidden. The mouth pouch is nice because it fits with the seemingly wide gulp. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Watermarks are discouraged, and don't look good when images are placed among others in for example cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Obelignathus UDL

Obelignathus

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The body appears fine but there are major revisions needed for the skull. Here is a rough illustration of the "Quarante" skull that is phylogenetically close and has at times been referred to septimanicus, with the snout shortened to account for dentary length differences, but some major takeaways are the position of the eye and depth of the snout and naris that are absent in the only other published (2003) skull reconstruction of a rhabdodontoid. It ends up much more similar overall to Tenontosaurus, lacking the oddly low and central eye position that is seen here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I need a little better of a reference. Can you point me to a clearer image, or maybe draw outlines over mine to show exactly what you mean? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a very very rough illustration of how the skull bones would fit into a full outline. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Adjusted facial proportions. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Obelignathus septimanicus

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification requested - Why is it quadrupedal? Isn't that a tenontosaurid apomorphy? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This follow Dieudonné et al. (2022). Ddinodan (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

A link for context. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I could be misunderstanding the paper, but it seems to suggest a shift from quadrupedality to bipedality through ontogeny in basal rhabdodontomorphs/iguanodontians, with rhabdodontids(oids?) being more fully quadrupedal. Is this recon supposed to be a juvenile individual? -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

"In sharp contrast, Late Cretaceous rhabdodontids would retain the juvenile quadrupedal stance of their ancestors, and maintain quadrupedality until their adulthood most probably through progenetic development."

From the abstract. Ddinodan (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

...right. And Obelignathus isn't a rhabdodontid. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Dieudonne doesn't use the same taxonomy as other studies so trying to apply the terms they use directly to the results here will not apply. For them, a non-rhabdodontid rhabdodontomorph is a taxon like Muttaburrasaurus, and a rhabdodontid would be a taxon like Obelignathus (as R. septimanicus in Dieudonne et al., 2016). Adding in Tenontosaurus as a rhabdodontomorph also gives more for a quadrupedal stance, so we should be able to follow that study pretty well to imply a quadrupedal stance is certainly possible in Obelignathus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the clarification. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the paper provided us a bipedal reconstruction, having one following the alternative model of rhabdodont movement is probably ideal. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Maleriraptor (UDL)

Maleriraptor

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It should have five toes on each of the feet. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The dewclaw of the left foot appears to sit higher on the metatarsal than that of the right foot? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Lowered left hallux, added tiny digit V on right foot. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Maleriraptor kuttyi

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Same comment as above, this should have five toes on each foot instead of four. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

How would this be made visible? The illustration follows the skeletal in the description from what I can see. The Morrison Man (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a tiny digit V seen in the skeletal (and in the life reco of the paper, too), which is absent in the drawing. Also, the dewclaw seems to sit too high, at least in the right foot. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there consensus regarding herrerasaur fifth digits being externally visible? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there even anyone suggesting they were not visible? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, foot anatomy is adjusted. You can barely see it either way. I would imagine there is very little literature either way on if it was visible or not since it's such an inconsequential and underrepresented element, so either interpretation works, but it's there now. Ddinodan (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)