Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Lourinhasaurus and others

Lourinhasaurus

This Lourinhasaurus is added by @Pfonseca1999: without review. Other works are from 2015. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Except Lourinhasaurus, they seem to have rather wonky anatomy, and the last one is entirely made up... FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Lourinhasaurus is the only usable one. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The works from 2015 are not intended for use, I uploaded them many years ago. The Lourinhasaurus reconstruction was made recently. I decided to upload it for use in the article. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I won't bother pointing out the errors in the ones from 2015 since the author agrees they are not usable. In the future, works should be submitted for review here prior to including them on Wikipedia pages. Regarding Lourinhasaurus, I'm not sure what to make of the zig-zag linework on the front of the body and both sides of the forelimb... what is that supposed to represent? Skye McDavid (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The zig-zag linework represents feature-, or ornamental-scales as they are known to exist in many sauropods and non-avian dinosaurs. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, feature scales are present in many sauropods and non-avian dinosaurs, but it's far from clear that that's what the linework represents. I would recommend revising the linework to just plain lines and if you want to include feature scales, illustrate them differently so that it's clear that that's what they represent. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version of the figure with revised lineart. I have removed the feature scales. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The indeterminate ankylosaur is actually Dracopelta zbyszewskii. 73.186.196.43 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There is one (or more, if the specimens I have seen so far are collected from different localities) new ankylosaurian specimens from Portugal, yet to describe. They might be Dracopelta, although that information is yet to be confirmed. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Although I can confirm that when I did that drawing, the intent was to depict Dracopelta. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Remainder of the 2024 dinosaurs

Ddinodan (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Overlaying Hartman's T. rex on T. mcraeensis, the arm seems to attach a bit too far ventrally (i.e. the glenoid needs to be moved dorsally). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

When I overlay with Hartman, as well as with the skeletals I actually used (Franoys T. rex + Valdez' T. mcraeensis) the arm placement is fine. Ddinodan (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is here in red: [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hartman skeletals are produced in perfect lateral, which is not what I drew. Tyrannosaurus didn't exist in a perfect 2D plane.

The skeletals I did refer to incorporate the curve of the chest into the placement of the arm. Ddinodan (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Attachment points are maybe off by a few centimeters? I think this is small enough of a detail that it does not matter if it is corrected (or needs to be). The Morrison Man (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The fossil suggests that the front end of the dentary of U. norelli needs to be a bit deeper and more square (this is a diagnostic character). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I traced the lower dentary (with appropriate soft tissue) when doing the recon. It is shaped appropriately. Ddinodan (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Allosaurus anax

Ddinodan (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Question;

What is to come of the diplodocid material that was also found? 73.186.196.43 (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's dubious, as explained in Saurophaganax. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but on this note, how should we treat our old Allosaurus-like "Saurophaganax" life restorations and skeletal mounts? Recategorise them as as A. anax, or keep them as "historical" restorations of Saurophaganax, as that article now labels one such restorations? I think it makes more sense to recategorise them, as they are de-facto A. anax? FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Most of the Allosaurus-like Saurophaganax reconstrctions could presumably be reassigned to A. anax, although the possibility remains that Saurophaganax is still a large theropod. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Saurophaganax reconstructions are traditionally been based on Allosaurus anyways, considering their close relation and even previously proposed synonymy at genus level. Most that look like Allosaurus should be of use for A. anax, in my opinion. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I agree that using Saurophaganax maximus reconstructions as Allosaurus anax makes sense; they're all reconstructions of the same giant allosaurid from Kenton Quarry 1, whatever the nomenclatural situation. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Saurophaganax is almost certainly a dubious species at this point. As for the reconstructions that were made prior to the paper by Danison et al., I recommend recategorizing them as A. anax. I agree the diplodocid material is also dubious. 2601:197:F00:330:359A:BCCE:511C:CFF5 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Archaeocursor

Follows the published femur and Eocursor.

Ddinodan (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The lower jaw seems very deep, at least as deep at the upper jaw? Looks much shallower in Hartman's Eocursor skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a direct copy-paste tracework of Hartman's Eocursor so yes it'll look different. Even so, when I overlay my linework on his, the depth difference is negligible (about the width of his linework when I scale to the cranium). Ddinodan (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't in itself that it doesn't fit Hartman's skeletal, but is there any reason to give an animal in its clade an exceptionally deep mandible? Looks to me like it's almost deeper than the upper jaw. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is the length of the skull + the protofeathers on the lower jaw. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm mainly talking about the part of the jaw in front of the feathers which seems to be skin. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, the mandible isn't that deep. I compared it to Hartman. The depth of the mandible is near identical to his. Ddinodan (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look too deep compared to the skull. A fairly deep mandible is present in heterodontosaurs, Agilisaurus, and some silesaurs. Even adult Lesothosaurus (Barrett et al. 2016; Sciscio et al. 2017) has a fairly deep mandible compared to subadults. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Judging by some other reconstructions of Archaeocursor I've seen, the animal likely had a more narrow head. 2601:197:F00:330:3A55:B9B5:17BC:1047 (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Mandible depth is fine. Miscellaneous early ornithischians do have deep mandibles as IJReid pointed out, and it's well within the range of plausibility. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Skeletal + size

Skeletal
Size

Another straightforward skeletal for an ornithischian known from a single femur. Quite small, too. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

looks good. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Suchomimus

{{subst:DNAU}

Seems this is added without review, any opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm unsure what's going on with the frontmost foot, it seems the front of the metatarsus is convex as if it was being lifted, but it's flat on the ground, so it should really be concave? And as usual, the neural spines seem too low. So is it an improvement over the image that was there before?[2][3] FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The tip of the snout looks a little odd; I don't think the tip of the dentary should be that prominent. Other than that however, I don't see any issues other than what's already been mentioned. The limbs, head, and tail are proportioned correctly as far as I can tell. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Neobohaiornis

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The perspective on the pair of tail feathers seems incorrect, I find it implausible that both would be so visible in lateral view. They should also be thinner. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I was trying to force the perspective to make the two feathers visible there. Updated. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Now Neobohaiornis looks better, but your other bird, Shuilingornis still does not have the corrected eye placement mentioned earlier. [4]Aventadoros (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Archaeocursor (UDL)

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious issues. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

This restoration has a femur, which corresponds to the known fossil material of this taxon. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ardetosaurus

Size chart for the new Morrison diplodocine. 12:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC) -SlvrHwk (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The sacral region seems to be dorsoventrally a little narrower than the skeletal suggests (again, could be an artefact of reposing). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Should just be differences in posing. I slightly rearticulated the vertebral column for my silhouette. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I see no issues with this. Matches what we know for the anatomy of diplodocines. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Ardetosaurus viator

Follows the known material and published skeletal.

Ddinodan (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No major problems. Is there a reason why the thumb claw appears to be directed posterodorsally? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Approve for article. I am curious why the slope of the back to the tail is nearly horizontal but this aligns with the press art so just a curiosity. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Yuanyanglong (Ddinodan)

Following the published material and Avimimus.

Ddinodan (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For me looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have larger wings (or at leats primary feathers)? following Caudipteryx, I believe the only oviraptorosaur we have preserved wigs from. In fact, it has the shortest wing-feathers where they should be longest here. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Caudipteryx is also half the size and has been proposed to be secondarily flightless. I don't know if the comparison for integument, especially wings, is apt. Ddinodan (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources suggesting oviraptorosaurs would have used their wings to cover eggs during nesting and for display, and none that indicate they would have somehow shortened their wings after becoming flightless, and that's not exactly what happened to for example ostriches etc. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Approve for article ~~I think the wings should be reassessed for their length. They don't appear too small to me but I haven't looked at the specific feather layout.~~ Changes had been made but not mentioned. I see no more changes needed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think longer legs and a smaller skull may be warranted; this guy had some funny proportions (see skeletal below). -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't access this paper but are the scaling of those elements correct? This looks extreme. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It certainly is extreme but it's also accurate. I made sure to check all the measurements with the holotype and referred specimens (and it helps that they are generally articulated on a single block). Also from the paper: "The skull...is small relative to the postcranium, with its anteroposterior length...only half the length of the ilium." -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yuanyanglong skeletal

Skeletal diagram

Reconstructed skeleton of Yuanyanglong including the holotype (white) and referred (orange) specimens. Gaps filled with Avimimus/Caudipteryx. I hadn't initially planned on illustrating the full skeleton, but it looked strange with the floating skull so I filled in the tail and neck. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Approve without revisions I see nothing to change here, though it might be worth considering specifying if musculature, skin, or feathers are included in the outline IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Rather strange leg position, it would tip forwards. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely way too front-heavy. Also, I believe it should still have four fingers. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

all of this, plus the taxonomy on the version which includes it is wrong. Skye McDavid (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Not accurate for article I dont see this being correctable and we have better alternatives. Should be tagged on Commons. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Skeletal of Tethyshadros insularis

This skeletal was added into article without review. Any comments?

Aventadoros (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are by an experienced illustrator and were published in a peer-reviewed paper. As such, they shouldn't really need review. I think the bigger issue is that they are sourced from EurekAlert, which I remember having licensing issues with in the past. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah source[5] only says "CC BY" and nothing other than that. I don't think image with unclear licence can be uploaded. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/May_2024#h-New_image_for_an_article_about_an_extinct_species-20240520194800, done before uploader uploaded this image to Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And there is actual cropped one from paper (CC BY 4.0). Why not use this instead? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I replaced image to this one but seems the user reverted my edit. Is that image they added from EurekAlert having legit licence? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to this particular scenario but EurekAlert has a problematic history with license laundering (this scenario comes to mind...) so I would be hesitant to use any images directly sourced from there, especially when nearly-identical, less questionably-licensed images exist. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

~~Revision:~~ Someone should check the licenses of these. I may when I am on my PC later. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Checking again I can confirm the licenses appear fine, these skeletals are published and don't need revisions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Glacialisaurus

Here is the initial drawing of my new version of Glacialisaurus. It's been a long time. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't know much about these guys, but looks artistically good to me, though it seems like the foot closest to the us, the left foot, is shorter than the right foot? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Looking at the scan again it seems to be that way you say. I guess it's the shading and the strokes of the longer digit around the claw. But I'll check the length of both legs, and I will leave that area more illuminated Levi bernardo (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is the latest draft Levi bernardo (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything that needs adjusting so I think its good to use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Tianzhenosaurus chengi

Follows the published material, T. youngi & related taxa following Thompson et al. (2012)

Ddinodan (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it is good to use I hate how low and heavy it looks but thats accurate for the taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahvaytum bahndooiveche

Follows the published material, Eoraptor and Buriolestes.

Ddinodan (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The eye seems too small compared to other saturnaliids and the dorsal margin of the skull too convex - here it is more or less a continuous curve while the rostrum is distinctly more narrow than the orbital region in Eoraptor, Buriolestes, and Mbiresaurus. If the hand does not have five digits, it should. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

The hand does have five digits. The skull of this animal is not preserved - I directly referenced Eoraptor for the skull. The proportions match Eoraptor for the eye and skull morphology. Ddinodan (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Lythronax. on the skull; it's a small detail but a noticeable one. Outside of Wikipedia I don't think it is unreasonable, but since the taxon's actual skull shape is unknown, *Wikipedia* illustrations shouldn't deviate from the next closest option. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It does not deviate from the next closest option. It is directly referenced from Eoraptor. As in I traced a cast skull of Eoraptor in my sketch. I know what I'm doing. Ddinodan (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

SlvrHwk's skeletal silhouette below has exactly the shape I have in mind. Can you show an overlay or something of the like to show how you arrived at your skull shape? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No. I have explained my process - any further critique you need to justify can be done yourself. I am not going out of my way to visually illustrate what I did for an element not even preserved in this animal. It's frankly a bit ridiculous.

Instead, I would suggest turning your attention towards UDL's reconstruction below, which has the skull shape you seemingly require, but is proportionally off everywhere else in regard to the proportions of related genera and SlvrHwk's skeletal. Considering this is the reconstruction that has been added to the animals page (without any critique, I might point out), it may be the more important of the two reconstructions to criticize. Ddinodan (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I must agree with Dan that the level of critique here is unecessary. Using your own time to overlay Eoraptor skulls shows you that the proportions indeed match. No level of educational value is being detracted from a minor difference in reconstruction that stays entirely within the realm of conservative possibility, especially since the article itself contains a skeletal. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Have to say we need to be flexible when adding illustrations for review and not consider any restoration posted here "locked" or "final". FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

While I agree with this, the 'critique' here both doesn't apply, seeing as the skull matches with that known from Eoraptor, and is wholly out of proportion when compared to that given for the other restoration of the animal, in this case by UDL, which arguably has more significant (proportional) issues but is already up on the page with no comments. I can understand Dan's frustration at this. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I was away from my image editing software but I made the initial critique precisely because I overlaid the actual skull of Eoraptor. The skull here doesn't match either the fossil (WitmerLab model) or Martinez et al. (2011)'s reconstruction. I will also add that my eye size critique was based on the reconstructed size of the sclerotic ring in Scott Hartman's skeletal (see UDL overlay below). I cannot control which images other editors decide to add but both of these have - easily fixable - issues of general anatomy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks to me like its based off the Hartman skeletal? Which matches the skull quite closely. I would like to add that, in my opinion, the skull matches the silhouette closely enough in both comparisons posted above to fall within the realm of plausibility for a related taxon. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The skull matches Hartman's skeletal, including the reconstructed size of the sclerotic ring. At this point this feels like needless pedantism rather than worrying about misinformation. Like has been mentioned multiple times, the current skull shape is fully within the realm of conservative possibility. No educational value has been lost because 1. we don't have skull material anyways, and 2. there is already a skeletal on the article showing all material (that we all already seem to have reached an unspoken consensus is perfectly fine). I don't understand why this supposedly such a big issue when the point of a life reconstruction is to give laypeople a conservative idea of what the animal looked like in life, they are not going to notice whether or not it has a concave or convex anterior margin on its rostrum. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

"within the realm of [plausibility / conservative possibility]" implies that there is some precedence for a basal sauropodomorph or saurischian with a convex—or even flat—skull roof margin (if this is the case, please let me know). It is pretty typical for the orbital region (frontal, etc.) to be slightly raised (including in Eoraptor). I don't think anyone is arguing that this isn't a pedantic and seemingly insignificant critique, but given Wikipedia policies and the widespread use of Wiki. illustrations as a resource, it would be preferable to follow typical reconstructions more closely. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Just for completeness, this piece is good to use by consensus and additional discussions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

As a reader of Wikipedia, I would like to thank the editors and paleoartists very much for creating articles and illustrations that make it easier to learn about extinct animals.

Unfortunately, I think the whole discussion about the appearance of Ahvaytum, (which is known only from individual bones!) was completely unnecessary and may contribute to Dan leaving Wikipedia and stop sharing his reconstructions. Nevertheless, I hope that, despite this argument, Dan will stay and share his graphics that allow readers to stop what the dinosaurs looked like. 2A00:F41:CA5:ED:C752:A13A:8E40:1779 (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The rostrum is even more pointed on the Hartman reconstruction than the Martinez reconstruction. I would not insist on the skull shape if it was not also seen in various other saturnaliids as I pointed out to begin with; as SlvrHwk noted, this is not the place to be speculative. But it seems that community consensus is against me on this one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree, but as it isn't directly an inaccuracy, I wouldn't insist on it anyway. There is of course some degree of flexibility in unknown features, but we shouldn't be reluctant to modify our submissions either if it is even the slightest improvement. This is exactly the place one will have to expect/accept pedantry. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Just want to reiterate that the head shape is not a problem with the restoration, but rather its utility on Wikipedia. It is perfectly reasonable that an aberrant Laurasian relative of Gondwanan taxa would have a distinct skull. However, since Wikipedia policies outside of our control don't allow for such original research and cranial material is available from several species with more 'concave' skulls (or raised orbits, rather), I would encourage a more conservative approach for the artwork on this site. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I have to disagree. The head is proportionally correct, and straight or convex snouts are present around the entire dinosaur origins (Silesaurids, Herrerasaurids, Unaysaurids and later prosauropods). This taxon isn't even definitively a sauropodomorph as the authors say, so I don't see why we are relying so heavily on the phylogenetic results they explicitly say are tentative, which is the only justification for giving is a saturnaliid concave snout. Plus external anatomy does not always agree with underlying bone shape. This is well within acceptable variation from Eoraptor. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Fair enough. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There's really two confounding issues here. Dan doesn't tend to revise work unless there's something significant, and people are seeming to be more nitpicky with his work because they are probably the illustrations that would be chosen to use all other things equal (slightly more dynamic pose, colour, and texturing than UDL, and generally accurate) and therefore people want it "perfect" to justify using it over alternatives. I feel like these two factors are coming together into something that isn't working and is arguably hurting the image review by making people react more confrontationally.

If there isn't anatomy that is worth tagging as inaccurate, it can be suggested, but shouldn't be demanded. This would minor proportional variation, contours, or integument that is within the realm of inter-generic variation can be suggested to be changed, but if the artist doesn't want to, we shouldn't press the issue. If there are features that would be worthy of an inaccuracy tag, such as the wrong digit count, proportions or contours that directly contradict the anatomy of the species in question or its larger bracket (not just the "immediate" closest relatives), or integument that is implausible or overly speculative, then bringing it up is worth further discussion. If the author doesn't wish to revise work, which is totally fair because we are all here to volunteer time and effort, we give the image an inaccurate tag and move on. I'd rather not have us keep pushing for changes when the artist has said they won't. There are enough pieces here that we can give each an equivalent review rather than focusing on one that isn't likely to change. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:54, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I wanna add on that this is a larger issue a lot of other people have with the image review progress, from what I've heard from other wikipedia artists they've found this place to be quite hostile. Remember that for many of us, we're doing this for free at a level of quality we'd usually give only to paid work, it is a luxury to have people that are willing to produce high quality graphics for free. Does that mean we shouldn't call out innacurate or highly speculative reconstructions when they appear? Obviously not. But it does mean that, like IJReid said above, we shouldn't push on stuff that's well within the possibility of known variation, or stuff that laypeople won't even notice or take into account when forming their opinion of a taxon based on the life reconstruction. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
I think we need to look at the larger picture here because this is just an example of what keeps happening on this page and not a one off problem. The idea of requiring accurate art is obvious and standards against original research is reasonable to an extent but it's absolutely lost the plot at this point. An excellent reconstruction Ahvaytum has been offered to our volunteer basis site and it's getting bombarded with frankly nonsensical nitpicks that are not holding up to scrutiny. The same sort of interactions can be seen in the "Remainder of the 2024 Dinosaurs" thread, and with Archaeocursor, and Lishulong, and the "New Genera of 2024" section, and Yuanyanlong, and that's just looking at Dan's sections that aren't archived yet. We are frankly lucky any artists donate their time to us at all and we treat them with the entitlement they will make every minor edit without even giving the consideration of knowing what we're talking about. At this point I would not blame Dan for getting fed up and leaving and he wouldn't be the first artist to do so. We need to re-evaluate our standards for how this page is run. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think there's two sides to this, you can't expect artwork to be locked and final when posting it here, and I think the reason this gets more stubborn responses is because criticism is pushed back more bluntly than in most other review sections. We all appreciate Dan's artwork, but there has to be some show of flexibility when posting artworks for review here. There are plenty of artists who devote a lot of time to donating their artwork here, and they also use considerable time responding to criticism and doing fixes. I think we should be very careful not to insinuate Dan is being singled out; the sheer volume of his posted work that flies through review without issues greatly outweighs cases like this with prolonged discussions. It's just part of the process. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

As IJReid said earlier, Dan has shown in the past that if something is blatantly wrong he is willing to change it, but this is quite literally the definition of pedantism. There is a difference between the lack of ability to be flexible, and being annoyed at consistent nitpicking of minor details that, in the grand scheme of things, do not matter nor detract from the educational value/accuracy of a reconstruction. Like I also said, many ex-wikipedia artists have found this page incredibly hostile and as such have stopped contributing their art for free, this is not a sign of said artists not being able to be flexible. You've repeated this point multiple times now despite people already clearing it up that the issue present isn't the fact that there's critique, but rather the level of pedantry present in this page. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think the level of pedantic criticism here is ridiculous and unwarranted. What a life recon needs to do is accurately represent what the taxon could have looked like. Only a few scraps of the taxon are known, those parts should accurately reflect the known material. All other areas are subject to interpretation. As long as it is a reasonable reconstruction without too much speculation, then it fits the bill. We do not know the exact proportions, it does not matter if a part of the reconstruction very slightly differs from known taxa that the missing parts are based on. You cannot say those are inaccurate because we do not know it's exact proportions. A life reconstruction for a scrappy taxon like this is always going to speculative to a degree. Either be honest and say that there should be no life reconstruction because we can't know what it looked like exactly, or stop complaining about minute details that essentially do not matter.

Label the reconstruction as a hypothetical and be done with it. Unless there's some actual criticism where the known fossil material does not match the recon, then the recon is literally fine as it is. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

There are reasons for pedantry; without showing that we do scrutinise user-made images, there's a chance we'll simply not be allowed to use them on Wikipedia. It's that simple. I've had countless discussions with non-palaeo editors that were removing restorations left and right (see linked discussions at the start of this page), and in the end, we were basically only allowed to include them if we showed that we had a detailed review system. So I've done my share of "fighting" to keep palaeoart in use here. But all the greatest user-made artwork in the world is useless if we're not allowed to use it. You could argue we've been overly pedantic in some cases, but that's very subjective. We all have our pet-peeves, but in the end, none of this is meant as personal attacks. To be frank, much of the palaeoart review process is symbolic, to simply prove the rest of Wikipedia that we're doing it, and not just rubber-stamp approving everything. Having a bit more back and forth than usual here is a very small price to pay. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Then I ask: why is that level of "scrutiny" not applied to all images sent here and all images posted to pages without review first? There are a myriad of reconstructions that are not up to this standard that have been in their articles for years at this point. Whether or not this is intentional or not, the pattern can most definitely be interpreted as personal. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 18:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, I think Dan's reconstructions are extremely high-quality and competent, and I am grateful for them - they are significantly above the bar of quality for images from 10 years ago. In my view, none of the suggestions I have ever made have ever been of a magnitude that precluded the inclusion and use of these images on pages. I apologise for insinuating the contrary - the overall accuracy of these images is consistently good enough that I have neglected to comment on generalities. However, I make these comments for the purpose that Funk is pointing out - image review exists for the purpose of convincing the wider Wikipedia community that our images are in complete accordance with the technical literature. A sample of my comments on other artists' restorations will show that I am consistent in the level at which I provide reviews. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, I think the logic behind the page makes sense. But I think we have absolutely taken the logic way too far. Does the concerns about speculative art hang over the whole WikiProject? Sure. Is making this fuss over what skull we referenced for Ahvaytum going to be the dealbreaker in this respect? I promise it is not. I promise nitpicking the pixels of the jaw length of a taxon only known from leg material when it broadly agrees with known relatives isn't going to be the dealbreaker. We've taken this logic to way too far an extreme. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The answer is that much of the artwork in our articles is literally decades old, and there are simply more skilled reviewers now than in any other point in time. A few years ago there was three or four editors posting stuff for review, now the amount is many times more. Look at for example UDL's sections, there is plenty of nitpicking going on for specific images, just like in the case of Dan. If there was some sort of conspiracy against him, you'd expect that every single one of his submissions got responses like this. They simply don't, 90% flies by without issue. So let's please stop beating that dead horse. FunkMonk (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

If the point really is to convince the wider wikipedia community that the images are in complete accordance with the technical literature, you can just do that by saying "Yes this is fine to add to the article and agrees with our current understanding based on <name> et al., (202x), etc. etc." rather than find the smallest thing to nitpick on that, again, does not matter nor affecs the educational value/accuracy of the reconstruction. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I am more than willing to revise my comments going forward to indicate the extent to which they bear on the overall accuracy and usability of the images. However, I do not believe in withholding valid observations - especially considering the initial comment stated that the taxon was explicitly based on Eoraptor and Buriolestes, not a hypothetical close relative with a different skull shape. That defeats the purpose of image review. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Then I think you should be clear about a particular criticism. to aid a detailed review process, I don't see much harm in mentioning how you might see something improved or even preference. But if something doesn't preclude inclusion on the page, then that should be clear and it would save Dan and other artists a lot of headaches. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, I think the logic behind the page makes sense. But I think we have absolutely taken the logic way too far. Does the concerns about speculative art hang over the whole WikiProject? Sure. Is making this fuss over what skull we referenced for Ahvaytum going to be the dealbreaker in this respect? I promise it is not. I promise nitpicking the pixels of the jaw length of a taxon only known from leg material when it broadly agrees with known relatives isn't going to be the dealbreaker. We've taken this logic to way too far an extreme. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

A review process should be productive. I understand that a great recon is no use if it's not allowed to be used. But nitpicking details that actually do not matter is not productive and it's scaring away good artists taking the time to improve scicomm. The speculative unknown parts, should reflect something plausible. It's good to have a detailed review process. The intense scrutiny should focus on the actual known parts of the taxon. It should not be focused on some reviewer's preference of how they'd reconstruct some very small detail that is ultimately not currently known. I think things should of course be clearly labeled. So a taxon like this should probably have a life recon labeled as speculative. But saying the snout be made slightly more convex is not productive in this case. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

But phylogenetic bracketing is an extremely important part of rigorous palaeoart, and the bottom line when it comes to restoring unknown parts, I don't think anyone can disagree. And again, we're here to prove to the rest of Wikipedia that the images used have been vetted, if we don't, we simply won't be allowed to use it, and then it doesn't matter how much or little we have of it. Whether it is Dan or anyone else, once in a while there will be a longer discussion like this, it happens to every single artist, including myself. It should also be noted that we routinely reevaluate older restorations which had otherwise been approved by the primordial reviewers here, so it's not like we just let them stay in articles, the sheer amount of them just makes it a gargantuan task. FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Phylegenetic bracketing is important but only gets you so far, even within a small group details like the ones you mention can vary a lot. Hyrotrioskjan (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but for Wikipedia, we have much less leeway for speculation than even scientific research papers due to WP:no original research: what we show and write has to be for the most part backed up by published sources, and follow established principles, such as phylogenetic bracketing, and precedents in published artwork. A non-paleo editor flinched at a Deviant art image showing eye-spots on ceratopsid neck frills we used not too long ago, and I had to demonstrate that this is commonly depicted in palaeoart by even palaeontologists. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And it is extremely possible to uphold that standard while not giving out nonsensical nitpick criticisms. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Come on, no one has said this artwork shouldn't be used or even tagged as inaccurate. People shouldn't be afraid of being nitpicky on a review page, and whether something is too nitpicky is an extremely subjective judgment. What usually happens is that criticisms are brought up, discussed, and if there is consensus for ignoring it, that's what happens, and that's what was about to happen here as well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

No.

From the wikipedia page of nitpicking: "Nitpicking is a term, first attested in 1956, that describes the action of giving too much attention to unimportant detail."

You should not give too much attention to unimportant details. There might not be any harm in mentioning a detail if it is clear that it is not an important detail. But it seems that in this discussion unimportant details are, and have been getting in the way of a productive review process. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It is, in my book, no original research if there is no published research contradicting minor details. I agree that within the borders of Wikipedia a reconstruction should be more restricted than elsewhere but would put a hard pass on "more conservative than published work in research papers". Why would press release artwork be too speculative if it was peer reviewed by the scientists who commissioned it?

We are talking about extremely subjective matters here, especially with again, such minor details.

In no way is Dan's work diverting from the overall bauplan of this group. Hyrotrioskjan (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And I say that although I think he could have diverted from it. It wouldn't have been less likely than the most conservative take. Without any more remains the whole rest of the animals is in a Schrödingers uncertainty field. Hyrotrioskjan (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It goes without saying that the missing parts should conform to phylogenetic bracketing. The level of changes suggested such as the concave snout or the size of the eye (that does actually match the sclerotic ring). These sorts of small difference are not an issue since the art is not depicting Eoraptor. And even if it did, there will have been bigger differences in individual variation. Yes, a life recon should reasonably reflect what we know. Some of the changes being suggested here are unreasonable when there is too little data or even no data to base the criticism on.

Given what has been said here in this conversation, I think it's dishonest to say this is just to convince the wider Wikipedia that there is a rigorous review process. Pet peeves do not belong in a process such as this. You are harming a potentially good review process, and scaring away good artists.

What matters is if the life recon accurately reflects the known fossil material, which to my understanding, it does. And if the missing parts are a reasonable inference based on phylogenetic bracketing, then it's suitable as a hypothetical reconstruction. The art here does not notably stray from what is reasonable. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

But there is nothing more nitpicky about this section than many others where the issue was simply discussed and either changed or ignored. Just look at the archives. Whether something is too nitpicky or not, or hey, too speculative or not, is arbitrary, and therefore up for healthy discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Our entire premise here is that this is a systemic, recurring issue. What you are seeing is a breaking point. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

And that's the problem. And like LittleLazyLass says, it's systemic.

Argue over the important stuff, not unimportant details that impede the review process. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Having examples in the past is not necessarily the sign of a healthy review process. Hyrotrioskjan (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Problem also in this particular instance is phylogenetic bracketing being extremely unreliable because the base of Dinosauria is such a jumbled mess that changes with every new specimen added to a matrix. These are not stable phylogenies. You can use pb, in my book, in such cases for the overall proportions, number of limbs, fingers etc. but size of claws, exact shape of skull, size of the eye? In an animal we have next to now information on? Who's ecology is unknown?

I don't think so. Hyrotrioskjan (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems that an actual pass / minor revisions / major revisions / fail system would solve a lot of issues surrounding the framing of comments. This is a review page and it puzzles me that this does not exist. For instance, I would have passed this image, but still made the comments that I did. I would have minor revisioned UDL's image downthread. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I do believe this would be very helpful. Part of Dan's concerns to my understanding is how art that's not getting at much nitpicking is ending up on pages when he feels his is being bogged down in the critiques here. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

To that point, I think it would also streamline the review process to being a vote + relevant literature referenced + comments if any (which can come later). As I said above, image review in practice has zero bearing on whether or not images get used, but it would help to achieve a tentative consensus faster. I would certainly like to give every image a review at the same depth but the quantity of images being posted on this page nowadays is so overwhelming that I miss some of them. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I think nitpicking over minor details of the skull profile is pretty pointless when we have no idea what the skull (or frankly allmost all) of this taxon looks like. This taxon is known from such scrappy material that it's questionable as to whether it warrants a life restoration in the first place (Mauricio Anton makes similar comments in his Sabertooth book which I've been reading recently). There's almost nothing to meaningfully critique given how little is known of it, and a mountain has truly been made out of a molehill here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

It's much easier having a real time discussion on Discord than here, and a bunch of us are doing that and it seems we're getting closer to an understanding, so I'll keep it there and return here when the dust has settled. Also keep in mind that some editors don't want us to use restorations of very fragmentary taxa at all, so this whole discussion is moot in that context. But I think what we need is some guidelines for etiquette for the site and an emphasis on consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
While it can also be found on the project page, here's another link to the Discord in case someone still needs it: https://discord.gg/MqNbwfmj9H The Morrison Man (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I've now added a section with suggestions here:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Size+skeletal

Size
Skeletal

Fragmentary and tiny—reminds me of Archaeocursor... -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure does, your skeletal looks too similar to your Archaeocursor skeletal. I recommend you fix the posture. 2601:197:F00:330:FC2:F9E2:95BE:8789 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

not sure what IP address' point was but this is fine - small early diverging dinosaurs being similar in appearance is to be expected. Posture is fine. This is a good diagram. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I see nothing requiring revisions so it should be good to use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass - posture is not a concern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Apex (Stegosaurus sp.)

Reconstruction of Apex (dinosaur), a Stegosaurus specimen of indeterminate species. It was drawn and added to the article by Lightbulbwiki today, but I have doubts about its accuracy. For instance, the head appears to be too long and oddly-shaped, with a beak-like bone in the upper jaw in place of the nasal cavity (as far as I remember, non-ceratopsian ornithischians only have the predentary bone in the lower jaw). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The first issue I see is the lack of nostrils and ear opening. Aventadoros (talk) 18:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Certainly not usable in its current state. I believe it has too many manual unguals (should be 2?) and the pedal unguals might be too large and 'clawlike' (rather than 'hooflike' as they have been described). Looks like the perspective on the dorsal plates might be off. Could also benefit from some pelvic definition. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The perspective on the dorsal plates (and, for that matter, on the thagomizer) is definitely weird, the darker plates appear to have their bases in the front, but to be behind the lighter plates on their sides (and smaller). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Much of the anatomy is not reflective of stegosaurs, its weirdly blobby. I have to say not accurate to use. It's already tagged appropriately. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

agreed, not usable Skye McDavid (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Dzharacursor

Follows the published material, Archaeornithomimus and Sinornithomimus.

Ddinodan (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good to use to me. The eye does look a bit odd being so simplistic, but that's an artistic choice and doesn't prevent use for me. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I also don't see any issues. This reconstruction is correct. Aventadoros (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass (tentative) - Anatomy is close to Sinornithomimus, but I haven't verified it against the Dzharacursor description. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issues—seeing as all of the referred material is not associated and belongs to individuals of different ages, not much can really be said about proportions. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Size comparisons by TheDarknix

Unreviewed size comparisons by TheDarknix.

Ahvaytum
Ahvaytum
Dzharacursor
Labocania

Aventadoros (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Fail for all but the first - These fall into the camp of OR via scaling individual specimens. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Dzharacursor is unusable. It uses a copyrighted silhouette. 49.144.198.58 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

The first three are not usable in their current state. The first two (Ahvaytum) implement direct unattributed traces of Hartman's Mbiresaurus, albeit with a very slightly adjusted arm posture and jaw gape. The mass estimates are also OR. Dzharacursor is problematic for the reasons mentioned by others (sizes for all specimens are OR since no estimates have been provided and they use direct traces of Ugueto's Sinornithomimus). The Labocania silhouette is under a free license so it is usable. The holotype size matches the skeletal and given length estimate. The referred dentary scrap is not given a length estimate, but Longrich's scale chart includes it, but at a much smaller size. I would strongly discourage including that specimen in a scale chart, given there's barely anything to work with. It's also slightly confusing how the holotype/referred labels do not align with the corresponding silhouettes. Preferably the chart would also include A. anomala for maximum utility on the page. From a stylistic aspect, including the etymology on the image is unnecessary clutter for Wikipedia since it's already given in the article body. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Speaking subjectively, having the colour codes over a black bar reads less well than having them on the white backround. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Pedopenna

Three alternate life reconstructions based on recently proposed phylogenetic positions and a rigorous skeletal of all known material.

Anchiornithid reconstruction is based on Anchiornis
Scansoriopterygid reconstruction is based on Epidexipteryx
Avialan reconstruction is based on Jeholornis

Sauriazoicillus (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the anchiornithid and avialan reconstructions are so different, anchiornithids are early avialans under many results. I do also want clarifications about why the ear is so large. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I felt it would be better to reconstruct it as a more "advanced" kind of avialan that's consistently found as an avialan to better display the possibility of different reconstructions. In terms of the ear, there are countless birds who's ears are this large relative to their head and I thought it would be a reasonable size. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

A jeholornithid-esque reconstruction may not be justifiable, I'm afraid. As far as I can gather, Hone et al. (2010) never did any analysis to back up calling Pedopenna an avialan, they just cite its original description. Checking that out, in the text the authors describe it as "more closely related to the Aves [Avialae] than any other known non-avian theropods" and "a basal member of the avian lineage", even though their own cladogram had it in a polytomy with Avialae and Deinonychosauria and they only systematically place it as far as a member of Eumaniraptora (perhaps they just read the cladogram weirdly?). I found a few more older article that offhandly describes Pedopenna as an avialan that only cite the original description, so it sounds like there was a bit of a misconception of the original description's actual results for a time.

In any case I'm happy to pass the other two reconstructions and the skeletal diagram, and the jeholornithid illustration is certainly nice enough that I wonder if it could be re-tooled for a genuine jeholornithid taxon, perhaps one without any existing illustrations? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

That last suggestion is great, I hate seeing good restorations go to waste. I can do the file renaming if we can determine which it should become. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I like the restorations, and agree that the Jeholornis version doesn't seem warranted. The text on the skeletal is unnecessary—while perhaps useful in other non-Wiki contexts (i.e. social media), all of that information already is (or should be) on the page, or would be better suited in the image description instead.

I'm more than happy for the jeholornithid reconstruction to be renamed and reused elsewhere, and I'll make sure to remove the text from the skeletal and edit the description so the measurements are in the caption rather than the image itself Sauriazoicillus (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Titanosaurus

Currently unused. This is by an user who is blocked editing in Wikipedia due to sockpuppetly. This user also uploaded bunch of copyvio images that are deleted, this image is uploaded after the user confirmed that. But anyway how is this image? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks fine to me if the positioning of them is indeed right, but I personally don't like skeletals that don't differentiate between the bones as it ruins readability and accessibility. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

If they posted copyvios in the past, why should we believe this is an original work? Checked if it exists elsewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I checked - Google's reverse image search is no good these days but I didn't find matches. Nevertheless, fail for reasons listed by Ornithopsis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The position of the caudal vertebrae is incorrect. The figured type caudal vertebra of Titanosaurus indicus is a middle caudal vertebra, not an anterior caudal vertebra as depicted here. The other vertebra has never been figured, to my knowledge, but Falconer's description indicates that it is less complete than depicted here, and I am not certain that its position is known with confidence. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with previous speakers - useless image. 2A01:110F:304:E500:6570:A855:2B0D:5ED7 (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus size diagram

So this diagram states that UCRC PV12 is the neotype, but that is certainly not the case. UCRC PV12 is simply a teeth referred to C. saharicus (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7188693/) and the actual neotype as suggested by Sereno et al. (1996), Brusatte et al. (2007) and Kellermann, Cuesta & Rauhut (2025) (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0311096) is SGM-Din 1. I don't know why this error was made, and I've seen that this error is also shown in the current version of </nowiki>Carcharodontosaurus article, so I think someone needs to change the caption here. Junsik1223 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The diagram will need to replaced regardless as the destroyed specimen has just been named as Tameryraptor and so doesn't belong on a Carcharodontosaurus diagram any more.. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

KoprX is still active and has updated the diagram recently. Note we also have this one by Slate Weasel. I think a case could be made to keep the Tameryraptor specimen on the diagram, since the page still references it extensively (as long as it is renamed on the diagram). -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I will update it to contain both C. saharicus and T. markgrafi, but wasnt SGM-Din 1 renamed to UCRC PV12? KoprX (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I had something confused when I first made this post but I'm sure that is not actually renamed, since the Tameryraptor paper also refers the neotype to SGM-Din 1. And at least a table in one paper suggests that UCRC PV12 belongs to C. iguidensis (not sure if this is a typo but that seems unlikely), and stated that the neotype SGM-Din 1 is separate (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2020.104627). As stated below I'm currently having a break for editing this month, so my only possible activity will just be replying on this section only for January. Junsik1223 (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I recommend that you practice adding content with as few edits as possible, rather than making multiple small edits. Recently an user was blocked from editing partly because of mass number of edits in single article, by the way. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Will do, as I will take a break this month now and reconsider about this. I am aware that I make excessive edits but I just couldn't find the right solution back then; maybe I can get some advice about this? Anyways have a great day. Junsik1223 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Updated KoprX (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Tameryraptor (Ddinodan)

Based on the published material. Yes, the "horn" is included - Tameryraptor is unique among most carcharodontosaurids in having a tapered nasal as opposed to a flat one, thus I've interpreted it as a keratinous ridge with a small peak above the horn (which still ends up almost doubling the height of the bone preserved).

Ddinodan (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions — Your interpretation of the horn may be too speculative for Wikipedia purposes, since the paper has a reconstruction with the horn exposed. Otherwise, no comments. 49.144.198.58 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps an overlay with the skeletal reconstruction could be of use here, as Dan does say that the horn is included. Horn in the paper is also not exposed The Morrison Man (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Dan's horn matches the bony outline in the paper's skeletal, but not the reconstructed soft tissue outline. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said on Discord, I'm not sold on the idea of one of these knobs that are barely any larger than the surrounding ones on a generally ridged and ornamented area (see Stromer's drawing[7]) should be a "nasal horn", but we also have to follow the literature. I'll refrain from giving any specific recommendation other than that, but you have my sympathies... FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
The nasal ornamentation doesn't appear larger proportionally than in Alioramus, which is regularly depicted without a horn. I don't think this piece is too far from the paper, there is just keratin supporting the "horn" anteriorly and posteriorly obscuring its prominence. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Since the paper's restoration is also free, we at least now have two different interpretations to show for balance. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The rest of the surface is almost flat save for the knob, that might have been bigger since its damaged (and by the article itself is reconstructed as such). Don't know what you're talking about. Pale vessel (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If you look at Stromer's original diagram[8], that is clearly not the case, and there are equally wide knobs behind and in front of the supposed "horn", as would be expected on the usually rugose nasals of carcharodontosaurids. That one of them were slightly longer should somehow mean it's a distinct horn and not just variation in a usually very plastic area, I'm not so sure. It looks equally possible that some of the other knobs may have been even longer in life too, but were weathered more down, but their basal width is similar. Stromer saw the specimen in real life, so I'd take his diagram over an interpretation from an old, distorted photo. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Stromer himself only thought the knob was damaged. There is no reason to believe the picture is in any way distorted considering the quality, and being old or not doesnt change that its a picture in considerably high quality of the real material. Pale vessel (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - General anatomy aligns well with skeletal from a rough eyeball. Concur with previous comments that the horn needs to be distinguished - the rugosity can be kept but should be reduced. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I would argue this is good to use. The reconstruction is consistent with the published skeletal and the cranial remains. A horn is clearly distinguished amid the other rugosities. Slightly more conservative keratin extensions over bone do not qualify as "too speculative". -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Pale vessel (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Also taking the side this is fine. It looks well within acceptable range of the size shown in the paper's skeletal, which I think is more important than the speculative restoration. Not to mention the material has been known for nearly a century and I don't believe it's ever been suggested to have a horn so large before now. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I find no issues with this reconstruction, having both this one and Knüppe's reconstructions on the page together show the range of possibilities and therefor enhance the educational value more than if just one or the other was present alone. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Tameryraptor (UDL)

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This feels like its off somehow and because of that needs minor revisions. The head shape doesn't seem to reflect the more complete skulls of carcharodontosaurids, especially the depth of the lower jaw and upturn of the snout. The horn is also too distinct, the entire nasal should be covered in keratin and therefore be at least the same texture and colour regardless of prominence. The hands also have odd shading making the middle finger appear more prominent than the others. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - Agree on horn and hand shading. Comparison with the paper's skeletal shows that the skull shape is actually not far off at all - it's just that the tip of the upper and lower jaws has been extended forward to a point by what is presumably soft tissue (although I am also unconvinced by the shape of this extension - the pmx teeth would be exposed when the jaw is closed?) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The paper's restoration shows the horn in a distinct colour from the surrounding rugosities, so at least there's published precedence for it. Not saying I agree, but it's there. FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not there as published research and a precident for "this is the way it is", but for compositional purposes to highlight a novel feature the paper reveals. The colour itself on the paper's life recon is only a lighter shade of the body's colour rather than this green vs. yellow, so I disagree that this distinct of a separation has a published precident. I'm also unsure we should be giving large animals colours like green in the first place since green is incredibly resource intensive to upkeep, especially for carnivores. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

You have a quote on that? It's clearly of a more "horn"-like colour[9], very distinct form the surrounding area, which is also downplayed in its rugosity compared to Stromer's drawing, to what purpose the paper says nothing about. FunkMonk (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't frankly an emphasis of colour or not is a worthwhile point to consider a necessary "revision" regardless. I cannot fathom that emphasizing a presumable display element in its own colour could possibly be considered too speculative and necessary to follow published reconstructions exactly for. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 08:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

But that's the thing, to follow the published reconstruction, it would have to have a different colour from the surrounding area. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

From the header Criticism of restorations should avoid nitpicking of minor subjective or hypothetical details. I think this reasonably comes under this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Along with the revisions brought up by IJReid; the postorbital boss and lacrimals should also have keratin sheaths, and I'd make the nostril larger, bigger animals need more oxygen. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

-Adjusted shading on right hand to de-emphasize middle finger

-Increased nostril size

-Adjusted soft tissue "lips" to cover premaxilla teeth

-The keratinous boss now covers the entire nasal ridge, making it taller and the horn much less distinct. The coloration reflects this. Overlaying the skeletal from the paper on my reconstruction will show that the tip of the "horn" (portrayed in black on the skeletal) sticks out further, but I'm presuming that the black part is speculative keratin on the part of that artist. The bone (portrayed in white) is contained within the keratin of my reconstruction.

-Not sure about the comment on the depth of the lower jaw above. Aside from an angle adjustment (and the keratin), the head is pretty much an exact tracing of the skeletal from the paper. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the only thing that still bothers me into asking for revisions is how the head slopes into the neck without any sagittal musculature. There should be muscles that project up over the neck from the back of the skull, which the skeletal doesn't emphasise well. The Meraxes skeletal is better at illustrating it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

revision - Like I said earlier the postorbital boss and lacrimal horns should also have keratin over them, not just the nasal. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 05:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Beg tse

Added by User:TutmTheTutm without review. As I see proportion is quite rough. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

This reconstruction is incorrect, for me it's useless. Aventadoros (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Fail - Diverges in known anatomy (jugal horn) and general anatomy of related taxa. Unsuitable as anything other than, perhaps, folk art. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Fail - Appears to have a plantigrade gate, which is incorrect. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the feedback, im sorry that it is quite inaccurate. TutmTheTutm (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Massospondylus restoration re-evaluation

Jens Lallensack is currently reworking the old Massospondylus FA for the WP:PALEOAW, and we were discussing that the available restorations have some issues and inconcistencies, so I thought it would be good to get them re-evaluated to see which are best to use, though most of them have been reviewed in the past. While Jens points out the NT restoration in the most accurate, I think it would be nice to also have a lateral view, but those seem to have issues, though they can probably be fixed. Jens can perhaps reiterate the issues he found with the images, and then we can maybe see if there if we can improve them. FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

NT's adult
NT's juvenile
Willoughby's
UDL's
Atlantis'

FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not good with judging drawings, but I try my best:

UDL's – I like that this is detailed rather than just a quick drawing, but I see a number of issues:

The trunk looks too rectangular to me; instead it should be a bit tapering anteriorly; the belly also seems to hang too close to the ground. Massospondylus was a small and slender animal, and the image should bring that across. Maybe have a look at Scott Hartmans skeleton, or even the scale chart [10] which bring the body built across much better.
The claw sizes are off. In the foot, the first claw should be by far the largest, not the smallest. In the hand, the first claw should be much larger and strongly recurved.
The skin in the feet is wrong. The scales there should be very small (usually just simple tubercles), and the dorsal surfaces of the toes should be covered with scutes. See the review of Hendrickx et al. (2022), doi: 10.1111/brv.12829, fig. 2, how this should look.
The neck is much too thick; the neck vertebrae are really really slender.
The scales on the back of the head are giant – larger than the eye! How do you determine scale size in the first place? What's the basis for this?
Similarly, the scales should become smaller towards the tip of the tail. Currently, a single scale covers the entire dorsoventral depth of the tail tip.
It has no teeth? Maybe you are assuming that it had lips, but in that case, the lower jaw would be way too thin. These teeth were quite long, I'm not sure they would be invidible even when accounting for lips.
Comparing with Hartman's skeletal reconstruction, isn't the trunk much too long compared with the neck?

Atlantis's – More like a quick drawing with less detail (no teeth, no scales, no skin texture, and the limbs disappear quickly in the trunk), but proportions (also those of the claws) seem accurate. The metatarsals of the right foot seem arched upwards, and the claw of digit I appears to grow directly out of the skin without a digit?

Willoughby's – Also more of a quick drawing. Digit II in the foot seems too short. Skull does not seem to be in precise lateral view since it appears a bit short with an upcurved upper tooth row. Also looks a bit massive in general with the trunk too low.

NT adult – Pollex claw (thumb claw) seems much too small, and the functional toes in the foot should maybe be more spread apart rather than completely parallel to each other as shown.

Looks like UDL is taking care of their restoration, so that should do it for the lateral view, I'll try to fix NT's then. What do we think about the tail-pose, by the way? When would the tail ever get into such a pose, and could it even? FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Mallison (2011) argue that tripodal poses were possible for most sauropods and might have been an important feeding method, so I see no reason why this should not have been possible for a basal sauropodomorph. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I'm thinking of the upwards curve that doesn't seem to serve any purpose, and may be stretching the level of flexibility? FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The curve upwards is ok, Jens Lallensack? If so, I'll just modify the other issues you listed. UDL also asks for approval below. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure, but since the tail is pointing away from the viewer, and taken perspective into account, the curve does not seem outrageous to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack here's a version[11] where I attempted to implement your suggested changes and some IJReid suggested on Discord (boxier skull, legs less far apart), any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good! The lower jaw could be a bit deeper, and digit I of the hand could be more massive (look how thick it is in Scott Hartman's diagram). But these are minor quibbles. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

I tried to fix those things too (the claw is from a somewhat different angle in Hartman's diagram, more from the side, while this one shows it a bit more from the top) and updated the file. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks great! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

NT baby – The quadrupedal shift hypothesis shown by the baby one is outdated now, but the image is still useful for the article.

At the moment, I tend to say that Willoughby's is best, but particularly UDS's has much potential if those issues could be fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I've adjusted for all the above comments on my Massospondylus: overall proportions, integument, claw size, teeth. Please let me know if there's anything else. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Excellent, much better! Scales look nice now. I now only see some more minor issues with the claws. First, the perspective of the big claw on the left hand looks strange to me; it does not look like it is pointing towards the viewer (as it should), it looks more like it's pointing upwards? Second, please check the relative claw sizes; I think the hallux claw in the foot is still not large enough, and the size differences between the other claws (in the foot and the hand) should probably be more pronounced. Maybe compare with Cooper (1981), fig. 80 shows the pes, and fig. 45 shows the manus. Feel free to wikimail me in case you don't have that paper. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Updated. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice! Only one last thing, because I just added that detail to the article so it would be nice to be accurate in the drawing here too: In your drawing, the foot claws differ in size, but appear to be identical in shape. However, according to Cooper, the thumb claw was flattened side-to-side, while the other claws were flattened top-to-bottom and only slightly curved (you see it clearly in his fig. 79). Other than that, I think it should be ready for inclusion in the article, pending comments of others of course. Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, and another one I just see (sorry for that): Digit IV in the hand sits too low, it appears to grow out of digit III. There should be not such a gap between digits IV and V, and both should originate from the wrist, and not that perpendicular to the arm as currently shown. See Scott Hartman's skeletal drawing here again. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Done! Let me know if there's anything else. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I went ahead and added the image to the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Dzharacursor (UDL)

Used sources from the paper, and Hartman's Gallimimus to fill in the gaps. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Curious what "gaps" you are referring to. Also why Gallimimus specifically was referenced instead of something phylogenetically and temporally closer like Sinornithomimus, which has significantly different proportions and is also known from many complete skeletons. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hartman's work is easy to find and reliable, while the published skeletal diagrams of Sinornithomimus (at least the ones that accompanied the description of the species, I'm not aware of others) are very rough. The adult is depicted as unguligrade and both of them have gastralia all the way up to the scapula. Skye McDavid (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

These skeletals may be technically imperfect but they still accurately reflect the general proportions of the taxon. And while the accessibility of Hartman's skeletals is very beneficial, it doesn't necessarily justify their use in all scenarios. Since there aren't associated remains of individuals for Dzharacursor, I can't say anything regarding the proportional accuracy of UDL's illustration, but I would personally prefer a Sinornithomimus-like body shape. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with SlvrHwk here in saying that the accessibility of certain lesser accurate resources doesn't justify their use. It would be preferable for the proportions to actually match close relatives. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Consider Gallimimus is only one step further than Sinornithomimus in Averianov & Sues' phylogenetic topology - this is not a case of taking a distant relative over a close one but one very close relative over a different close relative that may be one step closer. Also consider that the main difference in proportion between Gallimimus and Sinornithomimus is in the height of the pelvic elements and length of legs, both of which are incomplete in Dzharacursor. Additionally, the body shape of Sinornithomimus becomes more Gallimimus-like if the missing pectoral elements are added to the skeletal diagram. Sinornithomimus proportions would not fine, but the proportions of the current illustration are also fine. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Correction: Sinornithomimus proportions *would* be fine. Skye McDavid (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

More dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy:

Compsognathus
Silesaurus
Mononykus
Carnotaurus
Moros

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Carnotaurus should not have osteoderms. The skin impressions that were previously thought to be osteoderms have been reinterpreted as irregular feature scales. And there definitely shouldn't be more than two unguals on the hands, if any at all. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Silesaurus should only have three claws on the hand, but should have four toes on the feet. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, silesaurs are new territory for me, as their status within dinosauria is questionable. Can you point to a source regarding their digits? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's just the baseline for archosaurs. But based on lagerpetids this is clearly reversible (I don't know if any silesaurid hands exist). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

UnexpectedDinoLesson, would it be a bother to fix the claw issue? It's minor enough that I added the reconstruction (the old scaled one also had four claws, at much lower resolution) but smoothing over that minor issue would be appreciated. Archosaurs possess claws on the first, second, and third digit and not the fourth or fifth. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Claws removed from digits IV and V of manus, hallux added. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't think I've ever seen Compsognathus restored with such a concave upper surface of the snout? What's that based on? FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I assume that's just the outline of the antorbital fenestra visible through the skin. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
The skull of the Compsognathus is based on Scott Hartman's restoration. Not sure if you're asking about the outline, or what is indeed the fenestra. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Mononykus almost certainly would've had vestigial lateral digits that would be visible if the hand was unfeathered as you've reconstructed it. It has the articular facets for them, and Shuvuuia has them. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Vestigial fingers added to Mononykus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The skull of Carnotaurus doesn't seem tall enough, and the chest projects out too much in front of the shoulder girdle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Carnotaurus skull taller, osteoderms reduced to feature scales, claws on hand removed, chest reduced. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the basis of the lacrimal crest of Moros? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I based the skull on this skeletal, and the crest is just speculation. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Novavis

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions - Per the description of Novavis, I don't believe any enantiornithine except Chiappeavis and Yuanchuavis (both pengornithids) had a retricial tail fan like this. If the head is being based on longipterygids, teeth should be restricted to the jaw tip. But Eocathayornis has a skull that is considerably less elongated than this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Mexidracon (UDL)

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass - Represents diagnostic characters correctly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I have some concerns that suggest it might need revisions. The arms are articulating quite high up the body, they should be a bit behind the beginning of the chest and closer to belly-level. As well, I am wondering why the second finger is not shown as a fair bit longer than the others, which is found in most theropods, and why the feathers do not continue onto the hand (and second finger) at all? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The hand isn't that far off from Gallimimus. The feathering is assumedly meant to be in the vein of [12]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:52, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Arms moved down and back, second finger lengthened, feathers extended down hand. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Jainosaurus skeletal

This seems added by an user without review, are there any opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Leaning towards major revisions. The colouring, transparency, and insets all deviate from standard skeletal conventions and make the diagram very confusing. For instance, the dorsal rib fragments were not obvious as being such, and I'd maybe even exclude them altogether (considering they're of unknown position and seemingly lost). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If most of the preserved material is from the right arm (assuming I'm interpreting this correctly), why is it not shown in right-lateral view? Seems a little needlessly confusing. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Major Revisions - should be modified to follow standard skeletal diagram practices, and since it's mostly the right side it should be in right lateral view. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Oryctodromeus (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

What's the basis for the huge, cracked scales at the back of the head? From all we know, if you want to give it feathers, that part should be covered as well. FunkMonk (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended feathers up the back of the head. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks nice, though I see a few revisions that are needed. The tail should be longer (probably with your Fona as well, for which FunkMonk's integument comment could also apply). The tibia/fibula should also be longer, and the metatarsals could be shorter. See here for a general outline. Oryctodromeus also had five premaxillary teeth, though I'm not sure to what extent they would all be visible.

Finally, a more broad comment; it might be worth trying out some other methods of rendering fluffy integument/feathers. The current technique is not particularly believable, and their low resolution contrasts with the much higher detail of the scales. It seems odd to me that the 'feathers' are given such a hard, jagged outline along the dorsal surface, but effectively fade into translucency along the ventral border. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Tail lengthened, leg proportions adjusted.

I understand what you're saying about the integument, and I may experiment with different textures and techniques in the future, but for now I think it's good enough. Regarding the "hard, jagged outline", I'd rather have it feathered (no pun intended) on the outside edge of the silhouette, but that would result in "smudge" around the transparent PNG, so this is sort of a stylistic compromise. Hope that makes sense. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Mexidracon (Dan)

Follows the published material.

Ddinodan (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Pass - Represents diagnostic characters correctly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks accurate, good to use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

looks good to use Skye McDavid (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Tameryraptor by TolikZhelezno89

Unreviewed Tameryraptor reconstruction. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The head seems a bit small right? The general anatomy is okay apart from that I think. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, enlarged the head! TolikZhelezno89 (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There seem to be osteoderms on the back for some reason, despite there being no evidence for osteoderms in this taxon. -- A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Removed. TolikZhelezno89 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how I feel about the 'glowing' orange eye. That and the lighting/style almost lend it a comic-like appearance. While I appreciate the dynamic backlighting from an artistic perspective, it does obscure the anatomy somewhat at a thumb scale. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Eye glow removed. TolikZhelezno89 (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Very good changes, thanks! I think the only other thing is that the rear of the skull, at the level of the eye, should be a bit (~15%) deeper, so the snout is a bit more sloped. Carcharodontosaurus for reference. With this change, the crests over the eyes should shift back more to be above and in front of them. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Done! TolikZhelezno89 (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

One moment. It was removed by mistake. I'm going to restore it ASAP. TolikZhelezno89 (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Appealed. Waiting for the responce. I didn't violate copyright. It's my art. TolikZhelezno89 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Image restored! TolikZhelezno89 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Tameryraptor.png TolikZhelezno89 (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine to say its good to use at this point. Might not be space in the article right now though. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove the horn. 2601:197:F00:330:75F2:ECF1:9A5A:E422 (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Tratayenia

Please review for accuracy. This is my first time submitting my art to Wikimedia so there may be many things that are not appropriate for this. Eight heads serpent (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello, overall it's not bad 1. The first problem that comes to mind is the small legs and the muscles are weak, they can't bear this weight 2. I think you drew the claws too long. It would be better to make them a little thicker 3. I'm not sure about the angle contrast of the claws and hands, it would be better if they were at the same angle. I suggest there be a variety of colors on the body or at least the tail (bolder stripes with the same body color) This helps with camouflage Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I had trouble describing the muscles in Tratayenia's legs, so I will fix that again, but I have made some modifications to the colors and the forelimbs.Has it improved a little? Eight heads serpent (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The color is very good but don't continue the stripes all the way down the body.Lighten them before they reach the bottom of the body. Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The color scheme as it is is perfectly fine, in my opinion. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes of course, no problem. Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 10:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The leg musculature looks even more unrealistic now. Try toning it down a little. The length of the hand claws is fine; they were intense in megaraptorids. The updated colors are good, but I think the original scheme was also fine. What was your reference for the body shape? The legs are much too long based on composite skeletal reconstructions ([13], [14]). -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, compared to these, my drawing seems to have long legs. I used GetAwayTrike's diagram as a reference, but I must have gotten the length wrong when I drew it. I don't know if it will work, but I will try to correct it. Eight heads serpent (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Make the metatarsals and ankles bigger in general. The thigh muscle is abnormal (from the back). It should get thinner when it reaches the back of the knee. I think these are enough Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 08:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have created a slightly thinner version of the thigh near the back of the knee.I will now revise the ankle and metatarsal depictions. Is this enough to correct the thighs? Eight heads serpent (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Dryptosaurus new drawing

I made a new drawing for the Dryptosaurus article since it only contains a single outdated reconstruction from modern times. The reasonings for the habitat are given in the file description if you click on it and go to the wikicommons page. I decided to give it a large cape of feathers on its back while smaller brown and reddish feathers are on its neck. The coloration for the scales is based on some lizards and crocodilians while the feathers are based on the Golden eagle (but modified).The nostrils are a bright color due to the fact that many male birds have these elaborate flesh displays.

Bubblesorg (talk) 17:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The drawing itself is fine, but I'm not sure how useful this will be in the context of an encyclopedia because of how little of the animal you can actually see. If the idea is to provide an updated depiction of this taxon, it should be the primary object of the image, not take up less than half of the space. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what the point is in cropping the body out of a restoration when the animal is mainly known from postcranial remains. And what's wrong with the article's existing restoration? FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

The article notes it is outdated. I made this specifically for the paleoecological section. The one in the article is outdated thanks to it having three fingers and a rather outdated looking snout. Dryptosaurus facial material is not as fragmentary as one would think. It actually has a really well preserved dentary. The main issues with the current reconstruction are mostly due to the inaccurate front half so thats what I focused on. --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that masseter of archosauriforms does not have such color like mouth. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You mean the muzzle? If so no, not really ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yacare_caiman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toucan)--Bubblesorg (talk) 12:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I meant of cheeks. Modern birds are covered it with skin, crocodiles or other reptiles have one similar to skin color as well. Only pink on tip.[15] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, so I took some of that stuff in. I decided to remake a bit of this and show more of the animal.

Fujianvenator

Noticed that this art is not reviewed yet. Also skeletal seems also not passed but in use. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions - Anchiornithids don't have raised toes like troodontids? Also the background needs some cleanup. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dryptosaurus more body

I altered the image to show more of the body

Bubblesorg (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Anybody?--Bubblesorg (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems to be almost entirely traced from that skeletal? Referencing is ok but it's best to at least repose the animal. -SlvrHwk (talk) 12:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Is that a rule or a recommendation? --Bubblesorg (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

A recommendation. I can't see anything wrong with the anatomy so technically it good to use, but the brightness of the colours and lack of shadows really washes out most of the anatomy. Theres also some comments on colour above. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Iguanodon life reconstruction

Please review this life restoration/paleoart I created of the ornithopod Iguanodon. Without intending to undervalue the work of the other artist, consider that the image currently on the Iguanodon page is outdated based on the most recent interpretations of Iguanodon, so the purpose of adding this reconstruction would be to also update the morphology presented on the Iguanodon page. Sauroarchive (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a nice reconstruction. But yeah, it does have a few smaller issues. The art is not bad by any means. But if it were to be replaced there's a few areas that could be reconstructed differently.

The ear hole could be higher to match the position of the eardrum that is known in various dinosaurs such as Corythosaurus as well as Dromaeosaurus, Allosaurus and T. rex. While the midline feature scales look great, so far I think those are only known in saurolophine hadrosaurs and some sauropods. The beak shape could probably also be slightly different to be more in line with the beak impressions of various hadrosaurs. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

With multispecific genera, be sure to note which species is depicted. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

In agreement with FunkMonk, the species should be specified (though I would assume bernissartensis). I think the ear hole and feature scales are optional revisions but overall the piece is nice and a good illustration of the anatomy. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This looks fantastic. @Sauroarchive: can you confirm like others have suggested that this is indeed I. bernissartensis? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes. This is I. bernissartensis. Sauroarchive (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Allosaurus size update

A potential update for the Allosaurus size diagram to include A. anax [16]. This version is scaled to OMNH 1708 (a large femur). Technically, Danison et al. (2024) refer the femora to Allosaurus sp. but state in the text that it’s probably A. anax.

SMA 0005 (Big Al 2) has been updated. Considering how complete the specimen is, there are basically no useful measurements around at the moment. The previous version was scaled using a skeletal drawing that appears online and was scaled to a skull length of 79 cm (according to Black Hills Institute). However, the skeletal in question does not compare well to side view photographs of mounts of the specimen. Photos of the mounts suggest that Big Al 2 has a fairly large head, especially compared to the skeletal. It looks to me like the neck, torso, tail, and limbs in the skeletal are partially traced off a non-fully lateral photo, but the skull is scaled separately and is too small. My primary reference is a decent lateral view of a skeletal mount. Ideally, I would have preferred other measurements, like a femur length, but I can’t find one.

I have added AMNH 680 back into the diagram. It was removed because material from the salt wash member was referred to A. jimmadseni, which could potentially make AMNH 680 that species. However, Danison et al. (2024) mention this specimen as ‘referred to Allosaurus fragilis', so until I hear otherwise, I’ll stick it in with A. fragilis. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Looks great. Just a few notes on the text: technically, the scientific names should not be in italics if all the text is already in italics. The .sp also should not be in italics if the generic name is in italics. Lourinhã Formation is misspelled (lacks the line above the "a"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the spelling on Lourinhã! Yeah, the all italics was simply a cosmetic choice because I prefer the look of the font in italics, but I can change that. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me. I appreciate that the silhouettes are not all exactly the same. Commons caption should ideally specify which specific elements from each specimen were scaled. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:49, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I've tried to use specimen specific info/skeletals where possible. I'll aim to rework the caption to explain the details. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Petrustitan

Follows the published material, Jainosaurus and Antarctosaurus.

Ddinodan (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I have no comments for me it looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Uriash

Follows the published material and potential related taxa such as Paralititan, Rukwatitan and Gondwanatitan, as proposed by the authors.

Ddinodan (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I think its good to use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Baminornis

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment - I wonder if the tail fan should be smaller/the tail longer given the (informal) controversy over the interpretation of the "pygostyle". Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I propose to do an alternative reconstruction with a long tail. Aventadoros (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Uriash (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - Not clear why you've given Petrustitan and Uriash significantly different tail lengths considering the proportions of their posterior caudals are similar. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Theres also differences in torso length and skull size that are a bit unexplainable. It makes the proportions of Uraish, which should be more normal for a titanosaur (less uniquely small) uncanny. I think it needs major revisions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Proportions adjusted. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Sinosauropteryx lingyuanensis

Follows the published material and S. prima.

Ddinodan (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass, nothing stands out from a quick scaling: [17] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Baryonyx walkeri life restoration

This is the reconstruction that I did of the spinosaurid Baryonyx walkeri. Please review so I can put it on the Baryonyx page.

Sauroarchive (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious issues. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Sauroarchive (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but the posture looks quite awkward, especially the 'swinging' arms. The leg/walk cycle pose also seems somewhat robotic/unnatural. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Come on, there is nothing wrong with the posture...animals do not have a single pattern/cycle of locomotion and I made sure I articulated all the limbs properly Sauroarchive (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how widespread it was, but there is evidence of the hallux being close to the ground in some spinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
As far as I know, there are no fossil records of the hallux (first toe) specifically attributed to baryonychine spinosaurids. Besides, I used the skeletals from Scott Hartman (2022) and SirBlameson (2023) as references, and in both, Baryonyx's hallux is not close to the ground as it is in Spinosaurus. Sauroarchive (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. The detailed scaling work is quite impressive. The hand posture looks fine as it illustrates the medial and lateral form of the hand. That said we already have quite a few high-quality illustrations of Baryonyx (e.g [18]), so it's really up to FunkMonk (the article's main author) if he wants to use it in the article or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, problem is we aren't exactly in short supply of good Baryonyx restorations. I'm partial to this one because it shows dentition:[19] FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Not to diminish the artist of the current reconstruction (who, by the way, is a great artist and the reconstruction itself is very good), but it’s an older reconstruction with more evident anatomical errors or outdated features (such as the forward-facing palms, which was actually one of the reasons my Irritator reconstruction wasn’t accepted here, as it had the same mistake), and an outdated tail (considering the fossil material from Riparovenator, a Baryonychinae, from 2021) and besides that a gulgar pouch stretching the entirety of Baryonyx, and Suchomimus' mandible is pretty unlikely. Also, is it mandatory to be showing the dentition to be approved? Sauroarchive (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

About the hands, depends on where the rotation happens, the wrists of course can't, but the shoulders can, probably enough for this angle to be shown if rotated outwards, so I'm not sure it can be considered a downright error. As for the tail, Suchomimus[20] doesn't seem to have a particularly deep tail past the sacral vertebrae, so I'm not sure the tail of Riparovenator is a better model. It isn't mandatory to show dentition, but in this case, it gives it an edge (a small one, granted). That said, it's not like I have anything invested in that particular restoration, so I think there could be some further input from more editors on this if others think it should be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

The tail of the Suchomimus you referred to does not take into consideration the materials of Riparovenator and Ceratosuchops (2021), whereas Dan Folkes's Suchomimus skeletal (2023) does. You can compare both skeletal reconstructions and see there is a big difference in the tail with Riparovenator materials being considered. Also, the Suchomimus tail materials are not as complete as those of Riparovenator, that's why Suchomimus tail should be reconstructed considering the Riparovenator fossils as it fill its missing gaps Sauroarchive (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Well, if everything is fine, why can't I just add this image to the Baryonyx article myself? I'm not aware of "main authors" of these articles and as far as I know Wikipedia is a place where pages can be freely edited, and there are no "main authors" who should decide whether to use the images or not. As far as I know, this page is mainly meant for discussions and reviews of the paleoarts Sauroarchive (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't an art-gallery, though, and image layout and selection is important for Featured Articles. In this case, I'm not sure what another lateral view adds to the current image selection in the article, which is quite packed. Best practise for getting one's art used is to restore taxa that don't have good restorations already. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I get it. But why don't change a more outdated one with a more updated one considering there is no obvious issues and anatomical errors on it? Sauroarchive (talk) 01:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

What is outdated or inaccurate about the existing images? The lateral view in the article is from 2018 and was approved by review here. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I pointed them out in your response to Hemiauchenia Sauroarchive (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I see, will continue there. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that using the tail of Riparovenator is probably best since it's the most complete tail we have for a close relative.

No, I disagree on the gular pouch. Personally I think it's quite possible to have one since Baryonyx, Like Irritator and all spinosaurids we have quadrates for would have had at least some widening of the jaw when opening the mouth. The jaw joint opens at an angle. Thus I don't think the dentaries touching so closely you see in some Baryonychine reconstructions is correct. With more space a gular pouch would be potentially possible. So the presence of a gular pouch is not a good reason to say the art isn't accurate.

Yes, on the whole I think your recon, Sauroarchive, is better because of the overall skeletal anatomy that accurately reflects our current understanding. The life recon by Robinson Kunz that is currently on the page seems to have a rather flattened skull that doesn't quite reflect how we think spinosaur skulls looked. Also I think the presence of lips is better since the choanae are fairly far forward and lips would help seal the mouth so that the animal can push air and breathe through the nose.

In short, Sauroarchive's recon here is more accurate and should be favoured over the existing recon. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your considerations! The idea behind the absence of a gular pouch on Baryonychinae (it's pretty likely Spinosauridae like Spinosaurus and Irritator had them tho) is that the two halves of the dentary of Baryonyx and Suchomimus might have had some degree of flexibility, though likely not sufficient to allow for significant movement. Therefore, it's unlikely that a gular pouch would stretch across the entirety of its mandible. Aside from the extremely short space between the two dentaries of the mandible, which would hinder a gular pouch like those of pelicans and crocodiles. In this sense, I think they would be similar to gharials, with a very thin and elongated skull and almost no gular pouch. I confess that I was mistaken in citing this feature as inaccurate in the reconstruction I was referring to (the current one on the page), since these are hypotheses and I am not necessarily correct about it. Sauroarchive (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Baryonychine dentaries aren't very different medially from spinosaurine dentaries. Both have a rugose area at the front but not along the rest of the length. The dentaries being close together I think is just wrong and it wouldn't be compatible with the jaw widening that the jaw joints indicate. If you wanna open the jaw, they kinda can't be close together. Dentaries in both baryonychines and spinosaurines have a fairly robust front and middle. The posterior section where the splenial also attaches is much, much thinner and might have been a bit more flexible. Gharials, or other crocs wouldn't be a good analogue since spinosaurids have very different jaw shapes and jaw mechanics. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Regarding who "owns" the article, see Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and in particular WP:FAOWN since this article is an FA. Therefore, FunkMonk should decide which image is best for the article unless overruled by consensus here. Regarding the images itself, I see a significant contradiction in claw curvature in the hand; the new reco has extremely hook-like claws (looks like a 180° arc), while the old one has much more straight (and thin) claws. Where is this discrepancy coming from? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

In addition, there's the leg posture issue that was brought up earlier, which I don't think can be brushed off as due to variation, there are certain mechanics at play that are universal for bipedal locomotion. In this case, the grounded leg doesn’t look like it's properly supporting the body, but this could be fixed by making the metatarsals more vertical. When these issues are fixed, I'll replace the old restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

In the texts you sent, there are clearly statements emphasizing that no one has complete ownership of the articles and should not present themselves as such. In the "Featured Articles" section itself, it explicitly says: "Explaining civilly why sources and policies support a particular version of a featured article does not necessarily constitute ownership." So I still don't understand why it should be FunkMonk who gets to decide which reconstruction to use...

Regarding the curvature and size of the claws in my reconstruction are based on the idea that the sheath covering the ungual would extend well beyond the edge of the claw, as shown in the fossil itself (which, by the way, is quite long and curved), so there's no issue with that. Moreover, many birds have a keratinized sheath that extends significantly over the claw. Sauroarchive (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

It is true that you are free to make edits to any article, unless someone disagrees with your change and reverts you. In that case, WP:Dispute resolution applies, and the old version of the article (the status quo) stays until there is a consensus in favour of your change. Per WP:FAOWN, FunkMonk, as steward of the article, is encouraged to reject any changes that they think are not improving the article, to prevent degradation of the featured article over time. WP:FAOWN simply asks editors to discuss on the talk page before making changes to an FA, because the probability that they get reverted is much higher (since an FA is a high-level article that was already subject to much discussion and review). But everything is covered by WP:Dispute resolution, which applies to any article. I repeat: If someone (FunkMonk or anyone else) disagrees with the change, then a WP:Consensus is required before the change can be made. Does that make sense?

Regarding the claws, I am not yet convinced. Compared to Scott Hartman's skeleton, it looks like the preserved, much straighter unguals are already as long as your strongly curved claws, and this therefore does not seem to match. But I am interested in hearing the thoughts of others on this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of who adds the image to the article, this review page is for ensuring certain standards, and editors should not add images if there are outstanding issues that could be fixed. In this case, we're already saying the image could be used, but some issues have to be dealt with first (grounded foot posture/weight bearing, claw curvature). It has nothing to do about ownership, it's how review and consensus functions. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Petrustitan

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass - No issues that I can see. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Huadanosaurus

Follows the published material, Mirischia and Sinocalliopteryx.

Ddinodan (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions based on a quick scaling: [21] Two corrections needed: (1) The hand needs to be longer overall, especially the second digit. (2) The tibia needs to be longer, whereas it currently looks proportionally similar to Sinosauropteryx. Huadanosaurus is specifically noted as having a proportionally longer tibia (1.28x femoral length, although in Figure 1 it looks closer to 1.4x) than other sinosauropterygids (e.g. 1.1x for S. lingyuanensis). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: As a quick note, this specimen has been suggested to have reddish-brown integument (at least in some places) [22]. There is obviously a lot of room for error, interpretation, and variation so I'm not arguing that the color should be changed, just noting that a slight tint adjustment could help illustrate this possibility on Wiki pages. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, an issue also discussed here[23] is that the colouration previously suggested for Sinosauropteryx is based at least partially on the specimen that became Huadanosaurus. That would mean Huadanosaurus should have the same colour previously suggested for Sinosauropteryx. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd missed that this was the same specimen but I concur. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I will also note on this - I've adjusted the colour, but the methodology which is touted for determining the colour of Sinosauropteryx has been found to be unreliable (see Li et al. 2014), with a wide range of melanin pigments being possible beyond reddish browns. I'd keep this in mind when critiquing other reconstructions. Ddinodan (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Adjusted as per the above.

Ddinodan (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass - Looks great to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me as well. And the unreliability of color determination is why I added the caveats in my previous comments. I appreciate the update regardless! -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Kelmayisaurus

Hello! This is my first time submitting for Wikipedia with Kelmayisaurus, i'm fairly new to reconstructing animals this way and so some things may be off, I'm open to all criticism! not sure if the image will work i've never done this before

[24] Ghidorahstan (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

i was not sure at all how to add images so I'm sorry if I messed up! Ghidorahstan (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You can upload the image to Commons here. -SlvrHwk (talk) 08:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I have uploaded the image to the commons, I’m not where you can find it from there but I titled it just Kelmayisaurus Reconstruction Ghidorahstan (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello

1. The angle of the neck is very unusual. It should be lower and almost in line with the waist (the most important problem that needs to be fixed well)

2. The thigh muscle is cut off too early by the gastrocnemius muscles

3. Remove the fourth toe

4. The upper eye horn is too long (although there is no fossil evidence for the upper eye horn so it is better to be normal according to morphology)

5. The ear should be higher Iranshahi.Amir Ali (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I agree with the comments that the hallux (first digit) shouldn't be retroverted, and the thigh-calf transition on the back of the leg is too high (just slightly above belly is better). The placement of the ear is not a major thing but can be changed. However, I disagree about the crest height and the neck pose. The crest is a bit speculative but keratin extensions aren't unreasonable, and the neck seems to fit a tighter curve than most recons but thats possible because of its length. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The neck was entirely habit so I can extend it to a proper position if needed! Ghidorahstan (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions - In addition to the preceding comments on the hallux and pelvic musculature, I'm also not really sure what's going on with the pectoral girdle. Compare Allosaurus: That could be soft tissue in front of the pectoral girdle, but as currently drawn that looks like the ventral musculature of the neck is bulkier than it should be. At the top of the arm, the m. trapezius and m. latissimus dorsi should be extending uniformly upwards to connect to the cervicodorsal neural spines, whereas right now it looks like there's bulk running along the margin of the scapular blade. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your input I’ll get to changing it right now! Ghidorahstan (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

changes have been update and applied to fit the additions added, I wasn't sure how to do the hallux as I saw two comments saying to remove it or just move it Ghidorahstan (talk) 04:13, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Changes applied! Ghidorahstan (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The skull looks too long and low for a carcharodontosaurid to me. 49.144.198.58 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

currently it's placed as a basal allosauroid but I could make a carcharodontosaur reconstruction of it if I get to it Ghidorahstan (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Works by User:TheEnoderr

Shixinggia
Taurovenator

Found in Commons, only used in other languages. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions or fail for Taurovenator. The rostrum is way too stout even accounting for foreshortening, and the occiput appears to articulate with the neck at an irregular angle. And are those scutes on the neck??? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Fail for Shixinggia. There is no point in exclusively restoring the head of a taxon known exclusively from postcranial remains. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Xingxiulong yueorum

Follows the published material, X. chengi, Jingshanosaurus and Yunnanosaurus.

Ddinodan (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

For me looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Huadanosaurus (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions [25] - I can't pin down what's bothering me about the eye; perhaps it's too ventrally located inside the orbit. The neck is too short (compare placement of shoulder girdle). Hand is, again, too small. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Eye moved back, neck lengthened, hands larger. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I still don't like the eye but maybe someone else can chime in on it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The eye is definitely too low on the skull, it looks about mid-height where it should be more like 2/3 up. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Eye moved up. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's better. Pass from me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Various dinosaurs (UDL)

Please review for accuracy:

Nyasasaurus
Psittacosaurus
Megaraptor
Dryosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems on many of these that the second finger is very "inset" in relation to the rest? Pretty sure they would all be parallel. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. On the far (dinosaur's left) hand, I've shaded it to look like a palm. Is that what you're referring to? If so, I admit it may be too humanlike... UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It's on their left hands: the second finger is significantly more shaded, but I'm not sure why that would be the case, it makes it look like it is on a different plane (further behind) than the other fingers, even though they would all be parallel. That is especially clear on the Nyasasaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus sp. is missing its patagia and cloacal pigmentation. The feature scales of the shoulder also look only like pigmentation here, which is incorrect. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Patagia added, cloacal pigmentation added, feature scales on shoulder made more pronounced. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

For me Murusraptor has too skinny legs. UnexpectedDinoLesson could you fix it and Shuilingornis eyes please?

Aventadoros (talk) 10:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Eye moved back on Shuilingornis. I think I'm going to do a complete overhaul on Murusraptor. Might take me a while to get to that... UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Polacanthus

Please review for accuracy.

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think the art style is detracting from the accuracy in this piece and major revisions are needed. As can be referenced by equally-early Vectipelta, polacanthines would have been very wide, significantly wider than tall. The pelvic shield should be flatter, the lateral "rim" of osteoderms is highly speculative and not followed by authors such as Pond et al., there should be osteoderms extending further down the flank, large spikes along the center of the back isn't supported, osteoderm and skull armour and pelvic shield texturing should not be as regular, the pelvic shield especially was an arrangement of osteoderm tiling in a continuous mass, lateral spikes should be projecting laterally rather than ventrolaterally, the articulation of the humerus and scapulocoracoid should be on the side/underside of the shoulder, much closer to the chest rather than the side armour, the first finger should be much closer to the second and the palm should be convex slightly to slightly concave rather than deeply concave, the fingers are too long as the metacarpals should be columnar, the metatarsals appear too long or the tibiae too short, and the feet should have four toes rather than three with digit 3 as the longest. There are probably more things to adjust, but the most apparent is how the body lacks depth to display the roundness of ankylosaurs. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

In order to articulate the humerus with the scapulocoracoid better, I've simply moved the entire body up. I do think it looks better this way, let me know. Re-articulated the metacarpals, digits, metatarsals, tibiae, to reflect your comments. Added an additional toe on the near (dinosaur's right) foot (corresponding toe on opposite foot not visible).

I didn't notice when I uploaded the first version, but apparently some of the textures didn't render correctly when I exported the PNG. The textures on the back and hip shield should hopefully be better now. I've also flattened the pelvic shield along the outline.

As for the osteoderms, I reduced the large spikes on the back, but kept the neck spikes. I realize you said the "rim" of osteoderms is speculative, but I'm wondering how speculative I'm allowed to be here? Do you have a skeletal diagram or other visual guide of what these should look like? I did add some osteoderms down the flank, but their position is rather speculative as well.

Ankylosaurs are particularly difficult, so hopefully all these updates are a move in the right direction. As far as showing the width compared to the animal's height, I don't really have much to say here. My style is to depict it in direct profile, and while it might not be a good illustration of those dimensions, I am going for accuracy at this specific angle. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

This skeletal of Vectipelta is probably a good osteoderm reference since its for what would be a close relative of Polacanthus, certainly as close as Gastonia. The arm articulation looks better and in general it is moving in the right direction, but there are some other things I think can be adjusted more. The metatarsals are still too long at least on the near foot, they are 1/3 of the length of the tibia see here but the tibia-femur length looks better now. With that change, general proportions should be good, but there are other things to clean up.

I think the best way to display the width of the animal is to clearly shade the leg, arm, and underbelly in a way that shows the limbs are out beyond the torso see here. The thigh appears to merge into the body wall too low/too vertically anteriorly, and without any separation from the underbelly posteriorly, and the humerus has some similar issues. The tissue connecting the thigh and arm to the body should create much more of a shaded overhang to display that width, and shading of the midline of the stomach could also be darker. The osteoderms also should have some sort of harder margin where the keratin extends through the skin, which would make all of them much better-defined especially those on the side of the torso. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:07, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Adjusted the posture to make back/tail more horizontal. Updated osteoderms on flank to resemble Vectipelta diagram above. I shortened the right metatarsal and added more flesh to the leg articulation sites as you mentioned above. Also tried to update the shading on the belly to emphasize how wide the animal is. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this is acceptable now, though I would still suggest minor revisions to add definition to the edges of the osteoderms (skin and keratin would have a clear margin) and more definition at the back of the thigh to show it does not immediately merge into the body wall. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:41, 8 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 [26], the reported material is essentially the same that has been around for years [27], 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.[28] 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 [29] 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. [30]. 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)