Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 2017

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations"[7], so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Nemegtomaia on nest  Done

{{done}} I've been preparing the Nemegtomaia article for GA and FA lately, but since we don't have a full-body restoration of this guy, I thought I would make one. We don't seem to have restorations of nesting oviraptorosaurs either, so since one specimen of this genus was found on one, I drew it nesting. Here's a rough pencil sketch with some digital drawing on top:[8] Not sure if the actual shape of their nests is known, but it often seems to be depicted as a sort of mound with a hole in it. So now I'm trying to figure out how much of the legs would be visible... Also, I might have based the proportions of the nest too closely on this mount[9], it would seem from the nesting Citipati specimen that the nest was wider and perhaps not as deep?[10] And perhaps the eggs would not be fully covered. Or maybe they were simply exposed during excavation, and perhaps those fossils don't tell much about the actual nest structure? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I unfortunately can't help you with the leg posture (I haven't really paid attention to any sort of anatomy for about a while), but I can give you some pointers on the nest. We actually know a lot about ofuviraptorid nest structure. Oviraptorid nests are structured like a mound with concentric rings of eggs sort of stacked on top of eachother. ([11] A particularly well preserved example). The eggs should be paired, too. The eggs definitely should not be fully covered (see [12][13]). If there is any covering, it should only be around the edges leaving one end of the eggs exposed (so a mound with a hole in it might be about right). Also, the eggs probably should be olive green or blue with brown speckles, based on the pigments found in a Macroolithus eggshell. Hopefully that helps! I am definitely looking forward to this, I've often wanted to use a life-restoration of some kind of nesting oviraptorid in an article about elongatoolithids. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 14:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, definitely helps! It'll probably take a while to finish, since I have very little spare time these days, but it'll be nice to make it as up to date as possible, many restorations online even show naked or wingless oviraptorids on nests... FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Here's the drawing with some more detail, does the nest and eggs make sense?[14] I think I'll keep it rough so the feathering can be kept fairly ambiguous, not sure how they would actually work in these dinosaurs... Also kept the legs obscured by feathers and the mound (in that way the eggs would also be better covered). FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I added colour to the restoration and uploaded it, of course still open to corrections and suggestions. It can easily be modified further. I based the colours on a kori bustard, after googling "desert bird", but by chance it now seems very similar to the restoration recently published of Ajancingenia. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks great. I don't know the prominence of blue eggs, but some modern birds have them, so I'd say its fine. IJReid ^discuss 05:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

As Ashorocetus also noted, there are Macroolithus eggs preserving blue-green pigment (probably referable to Heyuannia). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the colour is based on that paper. I'm not sure if it applies to all oviraptorids, but the two genera are closely related. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Jingshanosaurus  Done

Full body reconstruction of Jingshanosaurus xinwaensis.

{{done}} I have created a reconstruction of Jingshanosaurus xinwaensis based on the skeletal diagram found here. Please let me know if any changed are needed.Paleocolour (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, we actually have a "prosauropod" expert around here, maybe HMallison has some input? FunkMonk (talk) 06:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

looks good! HMallison (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Ornithopsis might also have some input. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added it to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus  Done

Scelidosaurus harrisonii

{{done}} I notice that the wikipedia article for Scelidosaurus currently lacks a life restoration, and despite having noticed it on two users' to-do lists, marked as "done" on one, on the requested image page, there still isn't an image on the article. I'd like to offer my recent illustration (of course adjustments can be made if it is not up to standard) in the event that a life reconstruction is actually needed and that it would not be intruding on the turf of another artist who wishes to have their work on the article. The proportions and scute arrangement are based on Scott Hartman's 2013 skeletal reconstruction [15], and the bipedal gait is done in accordance with the bipedal scelidosaurid trackways from Holy Cross Mountain, Poland, as described in Gierliński, Gregard (1999) "Tracks of a large thyreophoran from the Early Jurassic of Poland"[16], and is intended to showcase this behaviour. Simple filamentous bristles on the throat are I believe reasonable, given that extensive filamentous integument is known in neornithischia, the sister clade to thyreophora. I would, again, be fine with making necessary adjustments to meet the standards required if anything in particular is in need of fixing, or if the piece is generally lacking in finesse or detail. Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks great, hadn't heard about those tracks before, have they been referenced by other workers? And has the idea that it could walk bipedally been supported since? Apart from that, I see that you have made most of the osteoderms spiky, whereas Hartman's skeletal shows many of them to be rounded. Is this supposed to be some keratinous extension? If not, I'm thinking the shape suggested by the osteoderms in the skeletal should be followed... See also this specimen, which all newer restorations are based on:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

A quick google scholar search recovers little other direct discussion of the matter, sadly, though it is cited several times in other publications (a few of which again featuring Gierliński as an author, though) and I can't find any interpretations of the trackway that argue against it. The illustration was done for a blog article specifically to illustrate the possibility of occasional bipedal movement in scelidosaurids. I did indeed add some keratinous extension to the osteoderms, though I didn't think I went so far with them as to exceed the realms of reasonable speculation. It also isn't particularly easy to interpret 3D shape from a 2D skeletal or a handful of pictures of a fossil, however, so if I'm ostensibly wrong in any regard I will concede. If these aspects of the illustration are slightly too speculative, then I could probably alter them. Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me then, it has been suggested that stegosaurs could rear, so why not this even more primitive guy... John Sibbick did some restorations closely based on that complete specimen, perhaps worth checking out, if you haven't already:[18][19] But if no one else has anything to add, I think it can go in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually have another of John Sibbick's drawings of Scelidosaurus pinned to my wall -- though it's not dated, from looking at it I wouldn't be surprised if it was a preliminary study for the reconstruction you linked. I think it is probably worth waiting a while to see if anyone else has anything to say on the matters. Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 21:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think some of those sketches are shown in the "Dinosaur Art" book, along with an interview, if you haven't seen it... FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sadly I don't own a copy, though I had a chance to flip through one several years ago and am always on the lookout for affordable copies in bookshops. It's entirely possible that the images are in that book, though I acquired mine as an A3 photocopy while volunteering at the Dinosaur Isle museum a couple years back. Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it to the article, I noticed the only restoration was a model from the 1980s, so this new one can only be better in any case... I also see the trackway is mentione din the article, so it's nice to have it there as support. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to see it further down the article, too. With the gorgeous remains we have of Scelidosaurus, the fossils really ought to take priority position. Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 21:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It also looks nice juxtaposed with the photo of the complete fossil. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Chuandongocoelurus  Done

{{done}} Please take a look at the skeletal reconstruction I have put together for Chuandongocoelurus. It is heavily based on Scott Hartman's Monolophosaurus skeletal, as this animal is considered a sister taxa of it. I have restored it with a crest as both Monolophosaurus and Sinosaurus have crests to some degree. I have filled, in white, the remains that are known as described in this email. As mentioned in the email, the unfused neurocentral sutures in the dorsal vertebrae show this was a subadult, so I have also included an adult size in one of the diagrams. The estimated adult size was determined from the sizes of related Monolophosaurus and Sinosaurus, of which approximately 5 metres was the conservative length I suggested. Please let me know what you think, and if any changes should be made. I would like to create a fleshed out reconstruction of this animal when this has been agreed upon. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The one MAJOR issue is the use of Scott's skeletals. We don't have permission to use them here, and because of that we can't use images directly based on them. I would be mildly accepting if the unknown skeletal was blacked out, to avoid the large amount of copied material. Best to dicsuss the skeletal usage with FunkMonk since he seems to know the rules about this better. IJReid ^discuss 06:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty big copyright issue, and could lead to deletion. I'd remove the unknown parts completely, and change the silhouette as much as possible, so it doesn't look too derivative. But another problem, you haven't based the shape on the bones on the actual fossils, but descriptions of them? If that's the case, how can we be remotely sure the proportions match the actual fossils? That's the point of s skeletal diagram I'd say, to show the individual bones correctly. I'd go find a paper that figures the bones instead and make them match those, otherwise the image is pretty much fiction. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I will remove the images from Wikipedia for now and return with a skeletal as you suggested. Thanks for your feedback. Paleocolour (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

It can be tricky when basing art on skeletals by others; most of my early restorations here were posed closely after the skeletal they were based on, but I have since reposed them, and now I always try to make completely different poses... FunkMonk (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hualianceratops  Done

Hualianceratops

{{done}} Hello, taking up projects, I want to review this recent image I made of the genre Hualianceratops, this occasion was a collaborative work done with a colleague. And it was reviewed by a scientific researcher. Which gave me a couple of suggestions. And now check here, to illustrate the article. Any comment? Levi bernardo (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Considering how little of the skulls contour is known, it would seem to be fine, little to compare with. Personally, I'd make the snout more prominent, as in other primitive ceratopsians, but we can't know from the fossil... FunkMonk (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Unpublished research by Ali Nabavizadeh limits the "cheeks" to the jaw musculature, which extend back from the prominent ridge on the dentary (very visible in Fig. 7). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Where can this be seen? And what does it apply to, ceratopsians in general? FunkMonk (talk) 10:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

You're right, the top of the snout should be more prominent, in any measure. Regarding the "cheek" my scientific adviser told me that the debate between the experts is in a tie, there are aspects for and against if the ornaments had cheeks, and as all the reviews are informal or in debates. I decided to show a ceratopsians with cheeks, but I'm more believing that they only have lips. Levi bernardo (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe it holds for all ceratopsians. The relevant research seems to have only been tangentially mentioned on Twitter and otherwise only in private correspondence, but it seems to have influenced this model... I do agree that waiting for the publication of these details would perhaps be advisable. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, in fact my adviser, was the scientific advisor of this work [20] (also without cheeks). And he was the one who told me that at the moment there is not yet a total consensus of whether they lacked them or not. Yes, I agree, and if the lack of cheeks is favored, will correct the illustration, but until this is done. I'll keep the cheeks. Levi bernardo (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, try to make the part near the nose as prominent as possible, maybe in a future revision is more prominent but this is what I have so far... Now is better? Levi bernardo (talk) 00:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks better to me! FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, if there is not any issue, I'll add it to the article. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Torvosaurus  Done

Life reconstruction of Torvosaurus tanneri

{{done}} Hey guys. Sorry I've disappeared for a while. Got you all a Torvosaurus for Wikipedia since the current one is kinda old and somewhat bland in my honest opinion. Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Something to note is that I gave it some scars on the face to go with the evidence of face-biting theropod behavior that never really gets implemented in reconstructions often. Of course this is just the outline work for now, once you give me the 'okay'I'll continue to render it and color it.Fred Wierum (talk) 03:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back! Looks nice, only thing that springs to mind is the placement of the ear. You seem to place it at the very back edge of the head margin, whereas others show it further in on the head.[21][22] I have no idea how they arrive at that position, maybe there is some osteological feature which indicates the position... FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully this more forward position is better? Fred Wierum (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, again, I have no idea why it should be more correct or anything. Looks fine to me otherwise, I personally don't think the lips/no-lips debate will be settled (if you haven't seen this news[23]) unless we find a mummified theropod head... By the way, someone added a new black and white restoration of Torvosaurus to the article in the meantime, and at first glance, the claws look way too thin on both the hands and feet... I think it'll have to be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I heard about the news and a lot of people are pointing out the study's flaws. I myself, not gonna lie, am not surprised and will stick with lips until better, more convincing evidence is presented. And I didnt see that new Torvosaurus image there before. Didnt get sent here to be reviewed? I'm honestly starting to see that happen often now when individuals randomly upload their own art without it getting checked over. I apologize if this is a tad my fault since it started happening more often since I joined. Fred Wierum (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I removed the thin-claw image again before you replied, but yeah, "random adds" of paleoart have been happening as long as I've been here, so it isn't new; one of the most prolific paleoartists on Wikipedia, Dimitry Bogdanov, never posted an image for review, but he gave permission to modify eventual inaccuracies in his images years ago. But he also mainly added them to the Russian Wikipedia, where there is no review as far as I know... So I think it's fine people add stuff, as long as they are willing to modify them afterwards when contacted about errors, but sometimes they just don't reply or never return... FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Fred, your Torvosaurus looks good to me. On discussion of ear placement: it goes in the space between the quadrate and the pterygoideus posterior musculature as illustrated here: http://sta.sh/017gzb0nfnwv On people uploading reconstructions without review: I had a discussion with the guy who uploaded that Torvosaurus & it would be good in future if we let people know about the review when we remove unvarified art, it is really the only way people are going to find out other than by word of mouth. Tomopteryx (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Completed. Any last corrections or good to go? Fred Wierum (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking spiffy! I don't have anything to add. And Tom, I've added a note to the uploader's talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Rativates  Done

{{done}} Hi all, long time no see. So I noticed that the last Rativates illustration never made it through review, leaving the article without an image. I figured since I have one ready made, I may as well put it up for review. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction of Rativates evadens by Tom Parker.

Welcome back too, seems we're having a little reunion here... Looks great, the lower jaw seems to be a bit deeper towards the back in the skeletal, but I can't find a proper photo of the fossil... FunkMonk (talk) 09:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

IIRC when I did it I found figures of the fossils and it didn't have that weird upturn that the diagram has, but I can do the edit if need be, it is only a tiny one. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

If it isn't in the fossil itself, it shouldn't be necessary... I'll add it! FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sahaliyania  Done

{{done}} Continuing in my old tradition of drawing dinosaurs of little consequence just to get something done quickly, here's a drawing that mainly served to squeeze the last ink out of some pens and markers I had lying around:[24] Any issues? FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

well you have the obvious advantage of this animal being known from next to nothing. That said, I'm not sure about the proportions, I think lambeosaurs are generally a bit longer of torso and shorter of leg than you've done here. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, should be an easy fix. And yeah, it's nice to be freed from too well-known proportions once in a while, hehe... Especially since I've rarely drawn hadrosaurs before. FunkMonk (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• I kind of forgot about this, after speculating whether it could be passed off as Augustynolophus instead, but then realising the head shape was completely different. More accurate now?[25] Pinging Tomopteryx, who had the last word... FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I recall hearing something about visible manual unguals in hadrosaurs. Not sure where that's at right now. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I usually read the opposite! The Edmontosaurus mummies seem to have their unguals encased in skin, so I'm not sure where the ideas of visible claws came from... Here's the old Greg Paul drawing:[26] On the other hand, the "Leonardo" specimen seems to be restored with visible hooves, though I'm not sure whether skin is preserved from its hands... FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Zhongjianosaurus  Done

{{done}} I was real fast with this boy, he doesn't even have an article yet! I have a version with a plain white background as well if that is prefered. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Life reconstruction of Zhongjianosaurus yangi by Tom Parker.

Seems the diagnostic features that separate it from Microraptor would not be visible in life (apart from slightly longer toes?), so you probably can't go wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks great! So many new taxa lately... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Now we just need the article, hehe... I'm still waiting to see how long Magnamanus will remain a red link... FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd work on it if I could read Spanish. :P Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is up, I've added the image Tomopteryx (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks great! Those are some long legs. No feathers preserved with this guy right? I'd probably go with much larger hind wings based on those leg proportions, personally. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! None preserved, no. I wanted to give it really generic paravian feathering as Andrea Cau found it took only 1 (!) extra step to move it to avialae. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Mamenchisaurus Species Scale diagram  Done

{{done}}

It's come to my attention that in GSP's Second Edition of his field guide he's back tracked a bit on this giant Mamenchisaur. In the listing for M.sinocanadorum he states 'adult size not certain' and for fossil remains it's gone form 'Majority of skeleton' to 'Minority of skeleton'. In one of the diagrams he's removed the illustrated bones to just a silhouette. He does mention the giant specimen in the notes. In this post on the DML [27] he wrote; 'there are a couple of supersized cervicals from the same formation as M. sinocanadorum that suggest the later got real enormous (an entire skeleton has been modeled from that, it's on Google'.

I'm not that surprised but what do you guys think in regards to the scale diagram? Should we modify it either get rid of the giant silhouette until more is published? Others have estimated M.sinocanadorum type specimen as having about a ~12m neck and being about 26m long, I might scale M.sinocanadorum to that and leave the giant silhouette and have it renamed to ?M.sinocanadorum Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I would personally leave out the giant mamenchisaur until it gets described, we can't really tell what species or even genus it belongs to until then. IJReid ^discuss 23:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Conservative estimates are the safest bet in any cases, and especially now if even GSP has bactracked... FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on an update to shrink M.sinocanadorm to be the size of type specimen estimates. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Carnotaurus - see below  Done

Reconstruction of Carnotaurus sastrei on the move

{{done}} Got a Carnotaurus sketch laid out. Not sure if the integument or arrangement of the osteoderms. Fred Wierum (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps Jens Lallensack, who wrote the featured article, has something to say. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The feature scales (not osteoderms) appear to have extended more ventrally on the torso. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

your feature scales don't extend far enough down. All the impressions from the specimen are from the ventral half of the animal. You have the size and arrangement (even rows) about right though. Tomopteryx (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Centrosaurus  Done

Centrosaurus reconstruction

{{done}} Also got a Centrosaurus sketch. Same as the Carno, not sure if the integument of osteoderms is correct. Would it be like Chasmosaurus or not? Reconstruction based off of Scott Hartman's skeletal and the skull of AMNH 5427 (on wiki page). Fred Wierum (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, the nostril-shape seems a bit unorthodox, but who the heck knows what was going on with those... Centrosaurus scales[28] seem to be much smaller and more even than those known for Chasmosaurus and Triceratops (though one big scale can be seen on the photo), but I don't know if they would have been different in other parts of the body... Tomopteryx seems to have reconstructed it with large scutes anyway[29], perhaps he has some input... How close are the length of the horns to those of the specimen? I'm assuming they would have been lengthened quite a bit by keratin... Also, the horn of AMNH 5427 seems to face forwards?[30] FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Length is pretty close, the nose horn was more in line with Scott Hartman's I will admit. I can point it forward like the wiki skull if that is preferred for you guys. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nah, it was more if you really wanted it to be that exact specimen. But sometimes it can be dangerous to mix features of different specimens even within the same species; you never know whether they will be reassigned to different taxa at some point, leaving the restoration a chimaera (like almost every single restoration of Euoplocephalus that mixes in the armour of Scolosaurus), but I think it's pretty unlikely to happen here... FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, will avoid mixing specimens in the future. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, first, please ignore my incredibly old "reconstruction" of this animal, it was done for a Jurassic Park fansite and I was working off a description given by them. Funk is right, you've done the feature scales too big here, those on Centrosaurus are much smaller than you've done here, more in line with those of Psittacosaurus than Chasmosaurus. I'd drop their scale by a good 50%. I also second the notion on mixing specimens, be very careful and avoid it when you can. Tomopteryx (talk) 03:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Additional points I forgot to mention: based on Psittacosaurus I'd probably extend the feature scales down onto the forelimb but that animal is far enough away phylogenetically that the choice is up to you. More seriously, there are pointed scales like those of Triceratops known from the midline of a "Monoclonius" specimen, so if it were me, I'd add those for sure. Here is the description: Brown 1917 "seven dermal plates were preserved, all similar in form, symmetrical and about equal in size. Each is characterized by a narrow, elongate base and a high, median center. They are about an inch wide, an inch and a half long and an inch and a half high. In that specimen the pelvis, a part of the tail, and the hind limbs are preserved and the plates were probably located above the spines in the caudal region similar to those of Ceratosaurus." Tomopteryx (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Is she good? Fred Wierum (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

No further points from me, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, was there any issues needing reworking? Fred Wierum (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the illustration is impressive, the "scales" have improved and look more realistic, but I would have placed the neck more curved, similar to "Monoclonius nasicornis"[31]. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's an issue, since Scott Hartman's skeletal has the neck stretched out rather than curled up like in your photo. Fred Wierum (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

That upwards curve may reflect the dinosaur death pose rather than a natural position (if it hasn't just been mounted that way from another position)... FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so Funk, was there any errors that needed fixing? Fred Wierum (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Not from me, but maybe Tomopteryx has something to add. FunkMonk (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The reconstructions by Scott Hartman are intended to show normal poses and graphics only to show the appearance and bones, rather than the stance of feeding or normal that these animals would have led in life, something like said Mike Taylor in a post here... [32] The skeleton of "Monoclonius nasicornis" is in the posture of death, but this reveals the ability of flexion that would have had dinosaur bones with cartilage included. Levi bernardo (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Both postures would probably be possible in life, so it's just a matter of choice, I guess... We should only refrain from showing postures that are known to have been biomechanically impossible in life. FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

All good on my end. Tomopteryx (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I've now added it, replacing the old restoration that looked a bit emaciated. By the way, you seem to make finished versions extremely fast, Fred, what do you use? Got one of those drawing tablets? FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Wacom Cintiq 13", Photoshop CC, and 20 years of drawing practice. Fred Wierum (talk) 20:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Nice, looks incredibly close to analogue art. And I'm still wasting time scanning paper and cleaning up the dirt with my old intuos tablet, haha... FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• A little late in the game, Fred Wierum, but you might want to check out the scalation on Mark Witton's restoration of the same skull here:[33] It is based on the pattern suggested in this paper:[34] FunkMonk (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Will add what he's discovered as soon as I can Fred Wierum (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Fixed his face. Fred Wierum (talk) 06:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! Seems we will have to take that Hieronymus paper into account when restoring cenrosaurines henceforward. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus Scale Diagram Between Species  Done

{{done}} This is the first time that I've ever contributed an image. I created a scale diagram between Carcharodontosaurus saharicus and C. iguidensis, since I've never seen a diagram that showed the massive difference between them. I uploaded it Scale.svg here Do you have any thoughts/suggestions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Feels too abstract to be useful. Silhouettes also seem to be on the anorexic side. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

They do seem a bit too skinny, and I think the man could benefit from being a bit more naturalistic. Anyhow, what are these sizes based on? It would have to be published science. FunkMonk (talk) 08:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with my colleagues. I don't think the man needs to have a more naturalistic silhouette simply to convey a relative size. I'm not sure what "too abstract" means. The profiles of the dinosaurs on the other hand should meet an exacting standard, and therefore be less skinny. de Bivort 13:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded a new version with proportions more similar to Paul Sereno's outline. The C. saharicus estimate comes from the same rescource. The C. iguidensis estimate comes from Gregory S. Paul's Dinosaurs: A Field Guide (or Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs). How do you recomend to make the image less abstract? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the chart yourself. I forgot to mention that I based the C. iguidensis outline off of C. saharicus because I have not yet seen an image of it outside of Wikimedia Commons. --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Image to be re-identificate  Done

{{done}} I don't think that File:Авацера́топс.jpg is an Avaceratops!--Bramfab (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like a cast of Inostrancevia, right down to the several missing neural spines and flimsy ribs.[35][36] FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur skin....Again.  Done

{{done}} How are you people feeling about the new paper by Bell et. al. regarding derived tyrannosaur skin? I have 2 tyrannosaurs that are close to fully feathered, only the underside and lower legs are 'scaly'. This was because it seemed like most the 'scale' impressions were from the underside and there have been reports of 'naked skin' from Phil Currie. Phil Currie is one of the authors of this paper, so maybe this interpretation is outdated. The paper shows that some 'scale' impressions are known from near the ilium and caudal vertebra.

Some online are doubting whether what we see are in fact all scales and could be sediment for example. In the paper and supplementary material is a description of Albertosaurus impressions from the abdomen. They describe regular rows that transition into more random looking scales. They also describe 'feature scales'. These are extra large scales dotted about the animal that scale impressions from all over the dinosaur tree show. This, at leat for Albertosaurus impressions, makes me think those could be actually scales, like other dinosaurs are thought to have, an not just bumpy skin.

Then there are the ideas floating about of feathers and scales coexisting.....comparisons to Rhino skin.....and other complications. What do you guys reckon we should do for our tyrannosaurs? I might dial back the feathers on my tyrannosaurids. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

While I don't really agree with alternative identifications of the integumentary impressions as e.g. skin or taphonomic artifacts, I think the paper is slightly problematic in its vague identification of the locations of the impressions. It talks about the Wyrex impressions being on the neck, for instance, but where on the neck? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

As long as there is considerable disagreement among palaeontologists (as there is about this), I think anything goes (within the established possibilities) when it comes to our restorations here. Same with the lip-issue. And we will likely never know unless we find some kind of mummified tyrannosaur... But I would personally not draw feathers in spots where scaled skin is known. Perhaps it is also good to show the different possibilities when available, as we now do in a few tyrannosaur articles. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are two versions that restrict the feathering to the dorsal surface, both are WIPs, the more sparsely feathered of the two will be less wirey in the finnished version. [37] [38] Which do you guys prefer? Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, at least. You may consider that at least Gregory Paul has proposed the arms may have had display feathers, but it's really just a mater of taste... FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the second rendition with the feather ends pointing downwards. Makes sense as to it being kinda shaggy and giving off that illusion of weight like those of emus.Personally I never liked the whole mangy, werewolf/rhino looking take on tyrannosaur feathers. Fred Wierum (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to state which version I preferred, as above, I also find the shaggier one more natural-looking. FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Ornithomimus Scale Chart  Done

Ornithomimus' Size

{{done}} I was rather suprised that no one has yet done a scale diagram on Ornithomimus, as it is a rather well known taxon, so I decided it would be a good time to do one. The silhouettes are based on Gregory S. Paul (who classified them as Struthiomimus), in addition to the size estimates. Any problems that need to be fixed? --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

As before, dinosaurs look too anorexic. The wings shouldn't just suddenly cut off like that. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I made the wings more natural (and added tail feathers), and made the silhouette less skinny. Any other problems? --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about overinflation of size. You seem to have scaled just the silhouettes, whereas Paul may have been measuring the length along the vertebral column. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I made the Ornithomimus smaller, with bars above them indicating their total length, and a line indicating the vertebral column. Is this too confusing? --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fine to remove the lines indicating the vertebral columns. The common layman would probably not be particularly concerned with the different methods of scaling. Otherwise, no more comments from me. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I removed the lines indicating the vertebrae. Is it ready for the article? --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the lines for vertebral length are still in the image? IJReid ^discuss 03:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking just the ones on the dinosaurs, but I'll remove those ones, too. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks good, as long as the sizes check out. It can probably be added to the article now. IJReid ^discuss 23:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

More Scale Charts  Done

• 
  Size of Nemegtosaurus and/or Opisthocoelicaudia. The latter was the only FA missing one.
• 
  Size of NMC 8547 and/or Anchiceratops. If you want a more typical body, I'll upload a different file.
• 
  Size of Anchiceratops.
• 
  Size of Pentaceratops. This is a very famous ceratopsian, so I was sprised that we didn't yet have a size chart for it.
• 
  Another GA that was missing a size comparison. Ampelosaurus was another titanosaur.
• 
  Corythosaurus and Hypacrosaurus are both GAs and very similar.

{{done}} It's been a week since Ornithomimus & Skorpiovenator, which gave me some time to make new charts. I also have one for Megalosaurus, Ampelosaurus, and Hypacrosaurus and/or Corythosaurus if you want those ones, too. Any problems/suggestion? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Jens Lallensack may have something to say about the Opisthocoelicaudia, as he wrote the article. As for Anchiceratops, it is not certain that skeleton even belongs to the genus, so it should probably not be used as basis for a size comparison. The Pentaceratops specimen used also seems like it is based on the somewhat controversial Titanoceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Anchiceratops with typical chasmosaurine body.

Okay, I uploaded the new Anchiceratops chart. Any problems? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I must say, again, that the stick-figure man is kind of off-putting. He looks too cartoonish compared to the dinosaurs. His arms also seem too long, almost like a chimp. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I added a new human to the Anchiceratops, and resized and reproportioned the Pentaceratops. With the first size comparison, is it okay that it says Nemegtosaurus mongoliensis (=Opisthocoelicaudia sharzynskii) or is that too confusing (or wrong)? How about the new human? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The human is much better, looks less like an alien (could be used in the other images too). As for Nemegtosaurus, since the image is mainly based on Opisthocoelicaudia, which is also the older name, why not use that name? There are also indications that the two will be definitively synonymised soon (with Opisthocoelicaudia being the valid name), as more fossils have apparently been found. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Contra what FunkMonk is saying, Nemegtosaurus should be the file name. Nemegtosaurus was named 1971, Opisthocoelicaudia 1977, so Nemegtosaurus has the priority of age. As added detail, the new material of Nemegtosaurus includes a femur, tibia, partial pedal bones, and a caudal vertebrae, all likely from the same individual as the holotype. The Nemegtosaurus silhouette should be fine as long as it aligns well with the Opisthocoelicaudia postcranial bones. IJReid ^discuss 16:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, other way around (Nemegtosaurus was described first, but Opisthocoelicaudia was found first). But the point is, that until this synonymy is accepted, the image is still 95% Opisthocoelicaudia, and would make more sense in that article (though it can of course be used in both, if the head has the right size). By the way, the abstract about the new material can be found here:[39] FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Imho it should be named Opisthocoelicaudia only (since the size of Nemegtosaurus is not known). Some papers suggest that the two might be found synonymous in the future, but since a synonymy cannot be demonstrated at present, they have to be treated separately. And according to the newest study it is not even clear that the two are related at all (Zaher et al., 2011). As for the chart itself, the whole things seems to low to me (for example, in Headden's reconstruction, which was cited as a source for the chart, the back is 3 m in height, so more than 50 cm are missing). Also, the spelling of the genus name has to be corrected. Apart from this, I am not sure if we need such a chart in the Opisthocoelicaudia article. Such charts can be useful, but this article is already quite loaded with nice pics. I would not really like to see any of the other pics to be replaced. Just my thoughts. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps some images could be shuffled around? There seems to be a good deal of white space in the classification section... FunkMonk (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course, if it fits somehow, have no objections. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I reproportioned the animal (and fixed the spelling error), but the neck got awfully short. When I made the neck more typical, it increased the animal's length by 2 meters, so I'm not sure exactly what to do about that. Anyways, if you want something for classification, I could make a chart with Saltasaurus and Alamosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Neck length looks OK to me. But now the sauropod is way to long. If we want to have a scale chart, we imo have to follow the reconstruction of Borsuk-Białynicka since she is the only one who gave a formal length estimate (and that is 11.4 m). This estimate is still used by more modern studies, so it is still regarded a reasonable assumption, and therefore the best there is, and definitely the one we should use (it also makes little sense to deliver our own original research information in the chart which then contradicts the WP article text). We have to stick to the proportions suggested by her, and she assumed a relatively short neck (for anatomical reasons also mentioned the WP article; and if you look, e.g., at Saltasaurus, shorter necks are nothing unusual for derived titanosaurs). I would suggest sticking to her reconstruction (paper is linked in the article) for the exact ratios between neck, body, and tail (regarding the shape of the body outline, we are a bit freer). And could you again improve on the caption, there are still spelling mistakes in the genus name? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, Greg Paul (a source cited by many of our dinosaur articles) gives the length of Nemegtosaurus/Opisthocoelicaudia as 13+ m. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Paul (who is not a studied paleontologist) books are written for the general public, and imo should not be used here when formal estimates published in the scientific literature exist. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

At the same time, size estimates are contingent on the head and neck, and I don't think Borsuk-Białynicka's frankly quite laughable reconstruction of the head and neck of Opisthocoelicaudia (especially considering her identification of it as a camarasaurid) is used seriously by any respectable researcher these days. Obviously it is necessary to base the postcervical skeleton as rigorously as possible on her description, but I see no such necessity for the size of the animal as a whole. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, the last source cited in the Opisthocoelicaudia article in favour of the 11.4 m size estimate comes from over 15 years ago. Paul may not be a formal researcher, but an estimate made in 2016 (taking into account new insights about the anatomy and posture of titanosaurs) certainly feels more persuasive than an estimate made in 1977 based on a flawed reconstruction and then reiterated without question in 2001. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

At this point, I think it is advisable for Slate Weasel to check that the postcervical skeleton in the size chart matches that as figured by Borsuk-Białynicka. If it does, and the length is still off, then we can go from there. It would be worse to downsize the whole animal, at the cost of rigorousness in the postcervical portion, than it would be to have a matching postcervical skeleton but not quite the right length. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Well this estimate is reiterated by others as well (I saw it in Holtz's popular book from 2008, which is as valid a source as the Paul book). Yes, the neck in the original reconstruction looks very short, but the same proportions were chosen by Schwarz et al. 2007 in their new reconstruction (cited in the article), and they still seem reasonable to me (the smaller the sauropod, the shorter the neck relative to the body; this is a well-known allometric relationship in sauropods, so you can't really compare this relatively small genus with the bigger titanosaurs). But maybe you are right that we do not necessarily need to stick to the 11.4 m as long as the proportions of the known skeletal parts are correct, as any estimate of neck length is little more than speculation anyhow. I will add the Paul estimate to the article as well, deal? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I just checked Holtz's 2011 appendix, and the estimate is reiterated there. It's recent enough that I'm comfortable with it, so I'll concede this point. However, Slate Weasel's neck seems to be significantly longer than Schwarz's reconstruction, so I'm a bit confused as to why you signed off on neck length. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I now added the Opisthocoelicaudia chart to the article, after adding additional sources to the length estimates. Thanks for the nice work, user:Slate Weasel. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not good with ceratopsians, but I can comment on the Nemegtosaurus. From what I can see, the Nemegtosaurus skull is too elongate. The neck feels too thin, and it is advisable to have the neck raised up at a ~45° angle, as with other titanosaurs. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I notice the Pentaceratops is missing the downward curve of the tail that is restored by Paul and others. I'm also a bit put off by the lack of epoccipitals, makes it look like Torosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Nemegtosaurus' proportions and posture are fine now. Epoccipitals (I uploaded the wrong image originally, but the one I previously had had the epoccipitals of Titanoceratops...) and the downward curve were added to the Pentaceratops. Any more anatomical problems? --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, one more - I believe bracketing implies the presence of bulb-and-root osteoderms on Nemegtosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

On this point I'd disagree with Lythronaxargestes. The skeleton of Opisthocoelicaudia is complete and associated enough for Wilson 2002 and other later authors to note that it likely lacks osteoderms, so I'd follow the published literature on that topic. IJReid ^discuss 20:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I uploaded the Ampelosaurus Scale Diagram. Problems/suggestions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The Ampelosaurus looks good for the proportions. Maybe make the neck more upright? IJReid ^discuss 18:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, quite commendable project to make size diagrams for all promoted articles. You can see them all here:[40] FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I also uploaded a Hypacrosaurus Scale Diagram, if you would like I'll change the first two into just Corythosaurus. Any other problems? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

It is advisable to illustrate the interspecific differences in the cranial crest. The crest for casuarius is a bit flat right now, for example. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Gasosaurus skeletal  Done

{{done}} I whipped up a Gasosaurus skeletal for a contest I am participating in a group, and I thought that the wiki could use it. I've hidden the left ribs where they would obscure the known material, and I have also left a slightly visible outline of the pubis and ischium in where they are covered by the femur. IJReid ^discuss 20:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I've checked that this skeletal illustrates the known material in a manner consistent with the original Chinese description. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Very good diagram. Only that I am worried that the humerus will be shown in posterior view like the publication, perhaps it could create a hypothetical lateral view for more realism. --Levi bernardo (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah I wasn't aware the image in the publication was not in lateral view. But I guess thats what happens when you can't speak chinese. I'll fix it, with a non-fake lateral view. IJReid ^discuss 03:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The new version now has a humerus in lateral view. IJReid ^discuss 04:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Much better, I will add it to the Spanish version when I expand the article. In the English version I think it is better to add this rigorous diagram than a casting of the skeleton. But anyway... Levi bernardo (talk) 23:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be added if the article ever gets expanded... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I see it replaced the skeletal mount in the taxobox, which I think was a good move. That reconstruction is so inaccurate that it would probably only be appropriate for the history section (I will see if I can make room for it by making a description header). FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The restored regions of that mount are absolutely terrible, but it does look like casts of the actual material are incorporated. So overall the mount does show the actual anatomy for those regions where known material is preserved. Everywhere else is horrible. IJReid ^discuss 18:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the legs of the silhouette be more drumstick-like? :) TKWTH (talk) 10:46, 09 August 2017 (GMT)

The life restoration doesn't seem to match the skeletal. Perhaps it should be tweaked. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In which features? The unknown parts should be of little concern. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It would seem that the lower leg is too short, particularly the tibiofibula (which is preserved). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe the Metatarsus as well. When making the skeletal I noticed that the metatarsus for Gasosaurus was much longer than other taxa. IJReid ^discuss 02:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So I take it that Paleocolour should make an adjustment to the life restoration? FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Carnotaurus round 2  Done

Illustration of Carnotaurus

Carnotaurus-Human size chart comparison

{{done}} Managed to find time to complete the Carnotaurus from months ago. Any errors, or is it acceptable? Fred Wierum (talk) 11:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Looking at Bonaparte's description of the integument, the feature scales seem to have been distributed a little more erratically, and seems to have extended to the ventrolateral surface of the tail. See Figure 37 therein and Czerkas' model in Figure 39. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, I wonder if there has been any follow-up work regarding what integumentary structures are indicated by the rugosities on the skull of Carnotaurus (à la Hieronymus et al.)? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• I definitely think Jens Lallensack should have a look here, as he wrote the article. Perhaps it could replace the old DBogdanov image, which seems somewhat weird. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the scale diagram could be replaced as well, seeing that it apparently also uses DBogdanov's image. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Added more osteoderms to the thighs and tail like that of the model in the paper Lythronax posted, as well as making a new size chart comparison. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Stylistically speaking, I like it. I'm not sure if it would be better to use the smaller Grillo & Delcourt estimate though, Jens may have an opinion on that. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the graph according to what Lythronaxargestes mentions, in addition there is a book by Molina-Pérez & Asier Larramendi that offers a similar estimate with 7.7 meters of length with 2.4 of height to the hips. And the illustration can only say that it seems correct. Good job.--Levi bernardo (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Greg Paul (2010, don't have 2016 at the moment) has 7.5 m, which is fairly close too. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Since the wiki page says 8-9m, and you guys are saying 7.7-7.5m, I could just leave it at 8? Fred Wierum (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd wait for Jens to sign off on the size. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if he got the ping, so I wrote on his talk-page... FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for missing this! As for the size chart, I would go with 8 m. The only peer-reviewed paper I found giving an explicit size estimation was that of Juárez Valieri et al. (2010), who gave "8–9 m" by citing the skeletal reconstruction published in Bonaparte, 1990. Also the more recent and reliable Scott Hartman reconstruction ([41]), although without a scale, suggest an length of slightly less than 8 m when I scale it after femur length (this is already OR of course and not of relevance here). Regarding the new life reconstruction: Awesome work! Would be nice to see it in the article soon. I don't spot any errors (but I'm not particularly good at judging life reconstructions, you guys are certainly better at this!). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There it is then, I think it's good (close enough to the Grill/court estimate anyway). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Is everyone in agreement? Fred Wierum (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I think these are definitely improvements over the old restoration and scale chart. Should be no problem to replace them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the article. The dinosaur in the older one was very pixelated and also looked like it was falling over. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Would you reduce the size of the man in the size comparison to be 1.8 m tall, Fred? I guess it would be kinda better if it would be 1.8 m tall instead of 1.9/nearly 2 m.

Inconsequential in the long run. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Latenivenatrix  Done

{{done}} One of my friends on DeviantArt made an illustration and put it up under a CC-BY license for us to use. I don't think theres anything wrong with the portions that are known, but someone else might want to take a look at it. IJReid ^discuss 20:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the primary feathers (which seem too small compared to any troodont with known feathers) are attached to the first instead of the second finger? There should probably be a "fan" of feathers along the tail, as is known in practically every deinonychosaur with persevered tail-feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I really don't want to come off as rude or full of myself (and by no means alienating others), but aside from the glaring anatomical inaccuracies, am I the only one who feels we should avoid this quality of artwork being accepted into Wikipedia? Our images are usually the first thing people see when doing light research on certain animals and I feel the quality of accuracy AND artwork should be at a certain level in order to keep a sense of professionalism. Though it's nice to see more and more artwork coming in and helping our cause, I do think a few are too low quality and look like children's scribbles rather than rigorous reconstructions. Again, I dont mean to offend, just a light concern. Fred Wierum (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

To be honest I see nothing wrong with the style of the art. Its relatively simplistic, but (aside from innaccuracies) it is fine for displaying the anatomy. We don't need the most detailed or highest quality pieces of art, and we probably won't get them either. But if corrected (which I will try to do) its a decent piece of art that it perfectly good for simply showing what the animal may have looked like. I will try to fix the wing and tail. IJReid ^discuss 22:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that apart from of course being anatomically accurate, there should be a minimum of artistic quality as well, but it is kind of subjective what the cut-off point should be. I think that in some cases we can use more simplistic work as "place holders" until more advanced images become available. As for this particular image, I just noticed a huge error I somehow missed before; the sickle claws are on the wrong sides of the feet! I think the image needs so much work done that it would maybe take less time just to make a new one... FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The same guy made a new version with more detail and corrections, under the same license. How does this one look accuracy-wise? IJReid ^discuss 23:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Better, but still some very weird wing-anatomy... The primary feathers should attach to the second finger, now they're coming out of the wrist or something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not only do the feathers not look right, especially the wings and tail feather arrangement, but the animal's right foot is missing the fourth (first?) toe. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Just to let you guys know if you didn't, another life restoration has been created and added to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The tail frond does not seem to extend to the base of the tail, nor does it appear to have asymmetrical plumage. Odd. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this one is accurate enough. My most important issue is the articulation of the forearm. The humerus seems too high up on the back, and the propatagium probably wasnt prominent enough to make a huge attachment for flesh from the hand to the base of the neck. IJReid ^discuss 00:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like what's being submitted isn't hitting the right notes so I made a quick reconstruction. Build and size based on this image [42]. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Life reconstruction of Latenivenatrix

Looks pretty good, but I think the tail "fan" should extend all the way along the tail, as in a majority of coelurosaurs that preserve tail feathers. IJReid ^discuss 04:52, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

To add on, based on the feather morphology of Jianianhualong, the feathers should be slightly asymmetrical with the possible exception of the distal feathers at the tip of the tail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

This is more of a side/three-quarter view so I dont think I can pull that off specifically. Fred Wierum (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

More on the feathers: There should probably be a slight hindlimb wing, and, as in all other paravians where the the pes is preserved, feathers should extend until the end of the metatarsals (maybe in Pedopenna alone that doens't happen?). IJReid ^discuss 05:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Can I get a referece image of this reduced leg wing? I'm unaware of it's arrangement. Fred Wierum (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks nice, maybe the jaws seem a bit broad? Keep in mind that the skull (and much other) material now assigned to Latenivenatrix was previously assigned to Stenonychosaurus, and is the basis of most restorations of that genus[43], so the jaws should be as "narrow" as that. On the other hand, the 1982 Dale Russell skull reconstruction, which is based on the same material, does seem pretty broad.[44] FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

So the reconstruction used with the larger bottom jaw doesn't hold up anymore? You certain, because I keep seeing many others using it. Perhaps there's a more up to date skeletal? Fred Wierum (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The depth is fine, I was thinking of the width (which of course isn't visible in profile). The skeletal does hold up, but what it means is that this[45] skeletal of Stenonychosaurus mainly depicts Latenivenatrix now... Anyhow, I'm not sure if there really is an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 06:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good now to me in terms of appearance. I am extremely suspect of the size in that skeletal figure so I would not base it on that. I am working on a skeletal scaled to the actual material, but in the meantime: van der Reest et al. give an estimate of 3-3.5 meters for the animal's length, so I'd go with that. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIJBAF_XcAA3XvF.jpg This shows the feathering of Serikornis, which is currently one of the closest taxa to troodontids with complete feathers preserved, and can show both the hindlimb feathers, and the tail feathers (also present in Jianianhualong). IJReid ^discuss 14:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Patagotitan Scale Chart  Done

{{done}}

Here is a link to the scale chart I was working on, it should improve on the one currently in the article which is way too ovesized. [46]

A welcome improvement. Looks great. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I've added it to the article. What's weird is in the main paper they have a somewhat dodgy looking skeletal but in the supplementary material they have a 3d Scan, presumably used to help create the mount, which they use for their mass estimation. Surely that would be the superior reconstruction to include? Unfortunately, it isn't shown in side view. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Of note, an alternative skeletal reconstruction has been made, but of course it is nearly impossible to verify this reconstruction given the near total lack of figures. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Puertasaurus Size Comparison  Done

Puertasaurus at 30 meters long.

"Antarctosaurus" giganteus at 33 meters long.

Life restoration of Puertasaurus - will complete once it is confirmed to be accurate.

{{done}} Hey guys, sorry I sort of disappeared for a while. I have some ideas for some images on Massospondylus, but for now I've created a scale chart for Puertasaurus, another giant Patagonian sauropod (referring to the Patagotitan section above, not Massospondylus). This guy's not known all that well. Any errors? I've tried to avoid making the sauropod to big. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Leg position looks weird. I would get rid of the horizontal neck thing entirely, it's too confusing. Could also use some osteoderms, given that Mendozasaurus has them. Head morphology might also be incorrect (based on the aberrant Malawisaurus, I presume). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think that the leg is at a more stable position (now that I take a second look, it looked like it was tipping over!). I also removed the individual in the background. What sort of osteoderms should I use? Large, rounded ones like Saltasaurus, spikes like Ampelosaurus, or a few, smaller ones? Also, I think that it is pretty closely related to Futalongkosaurus, which I've never seen having osteoderms. As for the head, Malawisaurus seems to be the closest relative I can find. Would Rapetosaurus be a better model? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Osteoderms should probably be unkeeled ellipsoids ("controversial elements" sensu Vidal et al., 2014). Tapuiasaurus may be a better skull analogue. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I think it should be better now. Speaking of giant Patagonian sauropods, I also created a chart for "Antarctosaurus" giganteus. Any more errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

A fragmentary taxon, not sure how much we can actually tell about it... it looks fine to me, at least. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that its okay to restore it, as we know more of its bones than we due Puertasaurus. By the way, the Puertasaurus we worked out is very different from the illustration in the taxobox, which has a much longer tail and a much shorter neck, which is rather different from Futalongkosaurus and other titanosaurs. Should it be kept in the taxobox, or should we move it (as it is the only life restoration that we have as of yet)? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I just created a life restoration of Puertasaurus. Any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it should be replaced. In your illustration, there should only be one parasagittal osteoderm row on each side. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I removed the lower two rows. Any other problems? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Although there is some uncertainty on this, the median row should probably be located at the front of the torso, transitioning gradually into the parasagittal rows. It may also be a good idea to smooth out the lines of the head & neck and bulk up the limbs, considering musculature and soft tissue. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I added the size comparison to the article, seeing as it is the most proportionally accurate one we have (as all the others use the outline of the life restoration). I will work on updates to the life restoration as soon as possible. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I smoothed the outline a bit, and stengthened the legs. I'm not quite sure what that arangement of osteoderms would look like. --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Admittedly crude, but perhaps like this. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on my lookings, I've noticed only a few issues. Firstly, the eye should be smaller, the ear would be too small to be visible at this distance, and the head should have no prominent line separating it from the neck. The lines defining the front and back of the thigh should be halved in height, theres enough muscle mass there to make a smooth transition to the torso and tail. The line defining the top of the hip should be higher, possibly level with the midline of the back there. I also think that the lines defining the upper region of the neck should be removed, those regions would be filled with tendons and ligaments and muscle as well. IJReid ^discuss 04:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think I've added everything so far recommended. Aything else? (By the way, I've removed all inaccurate images from the Puertasaurus article). --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The transition between the median and parasagittal osteoderms seems abrupt. Perhaps replacing the two osteoderms at that junction with a "transitional" osteoderm might work better. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that I've made the transitional osteoderms look flatter and wider, but was that what you had in mind? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm..... maybe move the parasagittal row more dorsally then.... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Better? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good now. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I added color, does the color scheme look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Feels a bit monotone. Adding in some non-greyscale colours would help. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I created two versions: a yellowish brown and a fairly light green. Which of these sound better, or should I do something else? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The yellow-brown sounds better than the green. IJReid ^discuss 22:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Does it look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your Antarctosaurus; to me it looks a bit like a diplodocid, nearly all high quality titanoaur reconstrutions I have seen show them as having, to variying degrees, a raised back (Short necked Saltasaurus being an extecption). Antarctosaurus giganteus is very incomplete so there is room for error but I doubt it had a horrizonal back like a diplodocid. The same comment would apply to LadyofHats restoration. That said, I'm not sure what titanosaur would be best to model it on.Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Deltadromeus Size Comparison

Deltadromeus compared to Homo sapiens.

{{done}} Made this one a while ago, not quite sure when. Any anatomical errors? Also, should I remove the IPGH specimen? And yes, I'm going to get to Massospondylus someday. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That orbital crest needs to die. Deltadromeus skull should be based more closely on Masiakasaurus and Limusaurus than anything else, even though the two have drastly different dentition their skull shapes arent as dissimilar. IJReid ^discuss 16:03, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Masiakasaurus? Wouldn't Neovenator be a better model, as Deltadromeus is belongs to Neovenatoridae? Also, Limusaurus is extremely derived, so I'm not sure if it would make a good general model, but you are right, none of these dinosaurs have orbital crests... in fact, Neovenator has a small depression over its eyes. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

No, see the Classification section. It was also recently recovered as a basal noasaurid. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Then we probably should change the taxobox, as it says Neovenatoridae. I'll work on a more Noasaurid type skull. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the IPGH specimen; I'm not completely read up on Deltadromeus but looking through its entry on the Theropod Database and the blog, it seems there are reasons that the IPGH specimen probably doesn't belong to Deltadromeus. [47] [48] Unfortunatly these arguments don't seem to have made it into the published literature. I know it's usually prefered to cite published literature but should we add this info to the article? Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I seem to remember hearing about how the IPGH specimen was dubious... I can remove it if you really want me to. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Slate Weasel I think the larger size specimen should be removed, when in doubt limit to type specimens. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I would say that the theropod database is an acceptable source to use in an article, yes. Lusotitan 00:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed it. I also was dubious that this was actually Deltadromeus. Is it ready now? I think it could be passed off as a noasaur or a neovenatorid now. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Futalognkosaurus Update  Done

{{done}} I noticed that the current illustration by User:NobuTamura is based on the early skeletal found in the description paper. We now have a few skeletals that show it to be somewhat different. Here is a link to an update help correct the overall proportions. [49] I have also added osteoderms because they seem quite widespread in titanosaurs. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

looks better. I'm wondering whether it's safe to show this exact osteoderm configuration on many disparate titanosaurs? It is pretty hypothetical, right? FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's doubtful that all the titanosaurs had the exact configuration, and it's possible this configuration is wrong. The advantage of the Vidal reconstruction is it's more citable. I wouldn't want to just completely make it up for an encyclopedia illustration. We can't be 100% until a well-preserved titanosaur is found with them in situ. I didn't copy Vidal's reconstruction exactly, in his the osteoderms just end abruptly. There is no evidence that I know of that shows anything approaching Ankylosaur like armour; due to rarity researchers reckon they were sparse.

In phylogenetic analysis Futalognkosaurus is shown to be close to Mendozsaurus, which has some 'bulb' osteoderms; it also has others that don't seem to fit that morphotype. Based on the two illustrated Mendozasaurus osteoderms, I gave them a more oval/'sharp edge' when compared to those shown in Vidal's bulb model, which have a more circular base for the hypothesised spikes. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it is probably the best approximation we have so far, but that being said, I would be wary of for example removing other restorations with different configurations, since it seems they wouldn't necessarily be incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think we should remove illustrations that show different interpretations. The only exception I feel is with Ampelosaurus which has historically been caked with ostederms in illustrations for which there is no evidence. If you google it almost every restoration shows the same/extremely similar arrangement of ostederms, spikes over the shoulders and plates over the hips; the truth is they all copied each other. Obviously, just using the Vidal interpretation we potentially run into a similar problem.Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

On that note, I came across this strange meme a while ago:[50] Not sure what it means... FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The old Ampelosaurus presumably indicates that the speaker is hypocritically offended by a meme being stolen (as indicated by the compression of the image, as well as the more spiky osteoderm arrangement). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The weird thing is, it's two version of "our" Ampelosaurus restoration (the new version was modified by Steve, and I made a crappy intermediate version), so someone has been looking at the revision history... The old version also seems to have inspired the design of a toy[51], speaking of "stealing"... FunkMonk (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Futalongkosaurus Size Comparison  Done

Size chart for Futalongkosaurus.

Size chart with Futalongkosaurus and 4 other sauropods.

{{done}} Since the life restoration was given osteoderms, I created a scale chart for this sauropod with armor. Questions/corrections/problems? (I'm wondering if this should also be armored Ampelosaurus-style.) --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No, it should not; see discussion above. Futalognkosaurus is more basal and thus has a different morphology. As before, I would remove the alternate neck pose (in grey) unless it specifically represents a different size - just confusing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, should be better now (the one in the back is just used to help me scale the critter to the right size, sorry about leaving it in). Also, are the legs too skinny? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Legs look fine. "Vertebral" is misspelled. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Is there anyone besides me who thinks a size comparison based on the 26 m estimate would be better? Calvo seems more reliable than GSP to me. (IP)

I just realized that Holtz gave another estimate at 28 meters. I've even seen estimates that go as high as 33 meters (but I have my doubts about these). Also, our sauropod size comparison by User:Dinoguy2 puts it at 30 meters (which also illustrates it as unarmored). For now, I'll work on adding a smaller estimate, but I would like to know which estimate seems most likely. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Holtz didn't give a weight estimate of 50 tonnes. Also, I bet that the 26 m estimate is the most reliable. (IP)

I am going to guess that the IP is a sockpuppet of User:WelcometoJurassicPark. The timing fits. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The estimates by Holtz and Paul (both of them) were more recent than the one by Calvo, so I'm leaning more towards a size closer to 30 meters. Should I revert? (By the way, the Futalongkosaurus in User:Dinoguy2's image seems to have some proportional problems, too (e.g. neck to short).) --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

From what I understand, there is some uncertainty regarding published measurements which as caused confusion as to it's probable size. For example, Nima Sassini has done several iterations attempting to restore Futalognkosaurus. Compare this version [52], which he restores at 27m long, to this version [53], which is restored at 24m long based on differing measrements. Paul restores it as bigger then Giraffatitan, whereas Scott Hartman has restored smaller. (I havn't measured how long he has made it) [54]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Holtz estimates are guesses at best, plenty of sizes clearly contradicted by fossils evidence are to be found in the index of his book. In the cause of Paul's (and Sassani's older recons), he holds on to his estimates based on the scalebars of the original publication, ignoring the most recent direct information we have on the size of Futalognkosaurus, which comes from the conference abstract Calvo et al. 2008, where it is said that the articulated vertebral series of it is 11.9m, hence the 26m estimate, Hartman's and Sassani's most recent reconstruction do incorporate that information, they just give it a shorter tail. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I resized it so that it's 26 meters long, based on Hartman's skeletal, which is where the hip height is from. I also completely redid it. Any problems with the new outline? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Added it, we really need to expand the article... --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Request: size-diagram for Ampelosaurus  Done

Ampelosaurus scale diagram

{{done}} As discussed on the talk page[55], I was wondering whether requests for images could be done directly here on the review page, since this is the page most artist's have watch-listed anyway. So I was thinking that Ampelosaurus, as a Good Article lacking a size-diagram, would be a good candidate (would be nice if all promoted articles had a restoration and a size-diagram). According to Greg Paul's Field Guide, it would have been 15 metres (49 ft) long. Any takers? This is also the first time IJReid's nifty "new section" button is used... FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I can probably create one in a couple minutes. It'll probably be acceptable for the article, but it won't be an .svg unfortunately. IJReid ^discuss 23:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've now made a quick scale diagram with the silhouette of the Ampelosaurus life restoration and an Andy Farke silhouette. IJReid ^discuss 03:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but now we're at the review page, we can already wait for people to review it... FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Regarding the size of Ampelosaursus; when I was updating the restoration I realised that not much is currently described even though many fossils are known and what is described comes from multiple different sized specimens. To my knowledge, no one has reliably tried to reconstruct it, at least in what has been published. I'd be tempted to reword the article in a few places to make the viewer aware that even though it's well known in terms of fossil specimens/anatomical details, it's not well known in terms of life appearance/proportions/size etc but I'm not sure how best to do that without it coming off as Original Research. If you want try out SVG for free, download Inkscape, it's good for these kinds of diagrams. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe that I can't run Inkscape on my system, I've tried before. As for anatomical appearance there isn't much to go on about overall appearance, most papers are on a specific region of the skeleton. If you can find something somewhere about how the appearance isn't described you can add that, otherwise it may be best to leave out general details unless we can find sources. IJReid ^discuss 14:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've added the image to the article. Maybe we should get some made for all the GAs? FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yep thats a pretty good idea. Theres a list on the "Achievements" page we can get to work on. IJReid ^discuss 03:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Done below. In the flurry of sections here, I failed to notice Ampelosaurus already had a new scale diagram:[56] FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:DINO Icon  Done

{{done}} A discussion has been going on at WT:DINO about replacing the old project icon, and this is the current version. I'm accepting of suggestions on arrangement and taxa, the colours are going through FunkMonk to ensure that they don't cause issues for those who are colourblind. I will be shifting taxa so that the sauropod has more room, but does anyone have other ideas? IJReid ^discuss 04:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, the colours of the ceratopsian and the iguanodont are kind of blending to me, could the ceratopsian perhaps be a brighter red? FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I just posted this over on the project page but I'll post it here as well, it's just a crude attempt, I think the colours maybe a bit too 'muted' but it attempts to add a 'depth' look; [57] Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Much easier to see the Graciliraptor now, only concern is that maniraptorans now seem way overrepresented compared to all the other clades? FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I do like having a small 'feathered dinosaur' and then an 'early bird' helping help to show that evolutionary transition. I'm torn; If we remove Graciliraptor that transition disappears but I think it would be a shame to loose Deinonychus because then we lose a modern representation of a very popular dinosaur clade. Maybe if the dinos were scaled down, more room could be made for better diversity? That said, I suspect that will end up looking cluttered. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the most needed taxa here are Tyrannosaurus, Deinonychus and Brontosaurus. Graciliraptor could be removed, but I think that it is one of the few images we can use to fill what whitespace in the upper left, along with the "bird" Confuciusornis. A modern bird could be placed there, but then that creates issues of the scope of the project, modern animals are specifically excluded. IJReid ^discuss 19:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe Archaeopteryx instead of Graciliraptor? Colours look fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Do we have any accurate illustrations or whatnot of an Archaeopteryx in flight? If so we can probably use that to replace both Graciliraptor and Confuciusornis. IJReid ^discuss 19:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

This one[58] maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Ooh that'll be a nasty thing to make into a silhouette. I'll check Phylopic first before I go for that undertaking. IJReid ^discuss 23:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I found a nice one my Michael Keesey thats PD 1.0. Should I use the colour for Confuciusornis of Graciliraptor for it? IJReid ^discuss 23:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think what you have there is pretty nice... FunkMonk (talk) 02:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Xixianykus Size Comparison  Done

{{done}}

I also whipped up this chart. Any comments/corrections? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the arms are too long. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Better? --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Added it to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Saurolophus angustirostris Skull Growth Diagram from 'Bell 2011'  Done

{{done}}

Saurolophus Cranial Ontogeny

This is Figure 12 from Bell 2011, 'Cranial osteology and ontogeny of Saurolophus angustirostris...' which is released under CC BY 4.0. I have cleaned it up and retyped the text. At some point when I get more time, I'll vectorize it. In the meantime, I'll upload it as a PNG. [59] Is it too technical? Should we remove the text on the bottom and just have a simple visual skull growth chart? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing the text. The prose can serve the same purpose, or maybe the figure caption if necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a version with the text removed and S.osborni thrown in for comparison. [60]. The text would just overcomplicate it. I don't think the average viewer would fully understand it without an essay explaining and a glossary, I'm not even sure what some of those words meant. ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe add the bottom bar back (the one that displays percentage ages)? IJReid ^discuss 01:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded to the Commons with percentage bar added in.Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe clarify in the diagram that the percentage is referring to size. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Added in descriptive text below the 'scale bar'. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I like it, looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Dromaeosaur Size Chart  Done

{{done}}

Size chart of different well known dromaeosaurs:Microraptor gui, Velociraptor mongoliensis, Austroraptor cabazai, Dromaeosaurus albertensis, Utahraptor ostrommaysorum, and Deinonychus antirrhopus

Artistic restoration of Austroraptor cabazai

Artistic restoration of Deinonychus antirrhopus

Artistic restoration of Dromaeosaurus albertensis

Artistic restoration of Microraptor gui

Artistic restoration of Utahraptor ostrommaysorum

Artistic restoration of Velociraptor mongoliensis

I feel that we've been needing an update on this image [61] so I went ahead and made an updated one. Thoughts? Errors? Fred Wierum (talk) 02:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks great! I don't know what reason Kirkland et al. have for taking away Utahraptor's primaries, but it's certainly not published yet, so I think that is fine for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, cool! One thing that may be taken into consideration is longer feathers around the ankles (or at least feathers all the way down to them), which seems to be primitive for deinonychosaurs. Also, these are so good that when the image is completely approved, it could maybe be nice to split each illustration off into its own files as well? FunkMonk (talk) 02:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, if the group can agree on which animal's we'd like to use, I can put the raptors into isolated images. I know Microraptor's image may need an update. Rest is up to you guys. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, can you link a fossil or another source for this I can use as reference, please? Fred Wierum (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Cf. Anchiornis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As well as the fact that "hind-wings" are known in both dromaeosaurs (microraptorines) and troodonts. So either this feature evolved convergently, or was retained from a common ancestor. FunkMonk (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

So I need to add the same leg feathers as those from Archaeopteryx? Fred Wierum (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

No. Hind-wings definitely seem to be ancestral to paravians, but Zhenyuanlong (which is the closest thing we have to a eudromaeosaur) lacks or at the very lease doesn't preserve them, which makes most of these fine. Only Austroraptor is left in contention, but if we assume it is a wading animal then it is unlikely it would have them either. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Zhenyuanlong[62] doesn't have visible feathers on its belly or head either, or anywhere on its legs, so it certainly seems we can't rely too much on what's absent there. But yes, there is no direct evidence for hind-wings in large dromaeosaurs, but phylogenetic bracketing implies at least feathers down to the ankles. FunkMonk (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Should we take phylogenetic bracketing into such consideration though? I mean, we always made that argument for Tyrannosaurus' feathered coat and look where that went. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

IMO that hasn't gone anywhere. Soft tissue is a bottomless pit of insufficient evidence. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There is certainly room for variation. It's just more parsimonious to use the bracketing. As for Tyrannosaurus, there still isn't any direct evidence for or against feathers, and if what was written here earlier is correct, we can't even be sure everyone agrees all dromaeosaurs should have primary feathers... FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Unclear as to what we decided on so I went ahead and added longer ankle feathers to Deino's legs. I edited them to where they werent as Emu as prior nor as advanced as a troodontid's [63], so a safe middle ground. Fred Wierum (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, user Mariomassone went ahead and cut out some of the animals in the size chart (Velo, Micro, & Dromaeo) to use for Phylogeny diagrams on pages like Dakotaraptor and Dromaeosauridae. I mentioned before, I will happily upload isolated illustrations in high quality for such uses. I just need name drops for which we want. Fred Wierum (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say Microraptor and Dromaeosaurus are most needed. We could also use Velociraptor but we have a nice restoration of it already. The others already have some very good illustrations. We could use your Austroraptor as well, currently the only other good restoration is yours. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A thought - the Microraptor is perhaps a bit too light, even with iridescence. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Darkened it a tad (not really, just changed the hue and made it seem darker), but didnt want to do change anything dramatically, or the viewer wouldn't be able to see the details of the animal. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I noticed some of my high resolution isolated dromaeosaur images were seen on wiki pages with their respective names (Velociraptor, Deinonychus, Austroraptor) but now they seem to be removed. Were there anatomical errors in these reconstructions for them to be taken out? If there are, I can fix em at any time.Fred Wierum (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There seems to have been some conflict over the colours on the Microraptor (which seems to have been resolved just above - I wouldn't be opposed to replacing the existing one with your in this case), but for the most part, no. It's merely that the diagram itself was also found on the page, so including the reconstruction twice (on its own and in the diagram) was seen as a redundant when other reconstructions for the species were also available. Lusotitan 17:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem was that the existing images there, which were fine, were replaced, whereas it would probably have been better to add the images elsewhere in the articles. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Unusual because that was the case at first. My Velo didnt replace Matt's and neither did my Deinonychus replace Emily's at first, then mine were removed. Quite odd turn of events. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what happened, some of the images were added by a vandal sock-puppet, so his edits may have been reverted on sight just because they were his. He has been wreaking havoc throughout many articles with different aliases the last month. So of course, a less suspicious user could always put the images back... FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, shame to have trouble makers like that disrupting the wiki place. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Majungasaurus  Done

Majungasaurus

{{done}} I know that there are already other images of this guy, but I was in an abelisaur mood. This could also be useful for cladograms. Any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, I intend to do a few more restorations of abelisaurs (I'm thinking Skorpiovenator, Aucasaurus, Carnotaurus, and possibly Rajasaurus, which needs a new restoration anyway). --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not recommend the usage of Paul's restoration, because there is a more recent one: Grillo & Delcourt (2017). See Fig. 3. The feature scales should extend further down the torso per the literature on Carnotaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• It seems very elongated, and almost crouching? Anyhow, I think it's good to focus on genera that don't have good restorations already (though people are of course allowed to draw whatever they want)... That still leaves many abelisaurs which don't have illustrations yet. 06:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Lythronaxargestes: I added some more feature scales. Is this what you had in mind? Also, I do not have access to the paper, so I can't make much out of the skeletal.

Comments by FunkMonk: The reason it looks like it is crouching is because it is. Naish et. al. suggested that it may have camouflaged itself as a log. I've already started Skorpiovenator (which lacks a restoration). I will still do Rajasaurus to replace the restoration with no fingers, but I will also do Ekrixinatosaurus and Quilmeosaurus instead of Carnotaurus and Aucasaurus. I originally chose these guys because I had the most material on them. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, if we want fingers back, we should just revert those restorations; they were removed when that paper that suggested no claws were present was published. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not because of the fingers, it's because of the shrink wrapping (it's labeled as inaccurate). --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Heh, I thought you meant the image in the taxobox, but yeah, I was planning on replacing the pencil drawing once the size graph was completed... FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Feature scales are good to me. As for the skeletal... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's better, it's modified from Hartman's, and it seems they just reverted it back to how he had it back in 2011, before he better reconciled the relative size of the elements of all the specimens in the composite, short explanation can be read on his deviantart here. As for the drawing, I think it'll be good to give it a smoother profile to the belly, the tucked-in way Paul restores their bellies is not supported by paleontologists. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Scaling to the same pubis size, I can see no difference between Grill/court (2017)'s skeletal and Hartman (2012)'s skeletal except for the (marginally) shorter tail and larger head. Of note, the relative size of the head and pubis did not change between Hartman (2011) and Hartman (2012), where differences came down to the scaling of the postcranial axial skeleton. Therefore, I find your assessment somewhat questionable. No public objections have been formally raised to the accuracy of Grill/court's skeletal, so I do not see why we cannot use it for reference. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on a deeper-chested version this afternoon. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it deep enough now or does it still hug the gastralia too close? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

More, I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

How about now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. I'd like to get comments by other editors on the Grill/court (2017) skeletal, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"except for the (marginally) shorter tail and larger head" thanks, I didn't superimpose the images so my guess was wrong but you confirm the real issue with it, Grillo&Delcourt say the skeletal is modified from Hartman, which, from looking closely, amounts to swapping the head for another and make it proportionally larger. Did Hartman got the relative size of the head wrong all of these years? that would be very unusual. As for public objection, that only happens with noteworthy animals. Maybe we should ask them. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So I should make the skull larger? --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or it may be more prudent to wait until there's a better explanation for the changes beyond "we looked at the fossil material". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Added it to the article to break up some white space. I'll make changes if needed later on. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Images by User:Ornitholestes  Done

{{done}} I was browsing on Commons and discovered these images:

• 
  Camptosaurus
• 
  Dracovenator
• 
  Suchomimus
• 
  Acrocanthosaurus
• 
  Antetonitrus
• 
  Sinoceratops
• 
  Allosaurus
• 
  Bahariasaurus
• 
  Stegosaurus
• 
  Linheraptor
• 
  Dacentrurus
• 
  Deltadromeus
• 
  Riojasaurus
• 
  Chindesaurus

There are a few more, but these seem to be the most accurate. Do you think we could use any of these? --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

In many of the relevant articles we already have, what can we say, more fully rendered images. Anyhow,the proportions seem off in many of these, and the quadrupeds have too massive digits and too many claws. FunkMonk (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

All the sauropodomorphs and ornithischians have inaccurate feet, with the exception of Camptosaurus. Meanwhile, the theropods are by and large quite shrinked wrapped; and like FunkMonk said, these aren't needed in almost all articles. Lusotitan 15:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The illustrations on the top row (excluding Sinoceratops and Antetonitrus) are reasonably accurate and could be used if there aren't alternative restorations. Some of the others (Antetonitrus) could be edited to make them reasonably accurate, while the others (oldest images) are very inaccurate. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:35, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Even the theropods have very weird feet, though, and many have sunken fenestrae... Since most of these already have good restorations, I think the effort isn't really worth it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The Antetonitrus is used in the article, so we should either edit it or create a new one. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we should prioritise fixing the ones we don't have other illustrations of... But I don't think we need the umpteenth Allosaurus, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

None of these images need fixing, all of their articles have (or will have) a better image. I plan to draw Antetonitrus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Gualicho  Done

{{done}} I have put together a scale diagram and restoration of Gualicho shinyae for use in its article. Because no skull material was found, the lineartist Fredrick Alexander (spinosaurus1 on Devinat Art) referenced the skull of Murusraptor for this restoration. Skull found here for reference. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Thank you. Paleocolour (talk) 04:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to swap out the head. There are a lot of things that Gualicho could be. Giving it a megaraptoran skull arbitrarily feels like original research.

I'm also against depicting multiple sizes here. There is one size for the known elements. It's not a matter of scaling the entire animal up or down, it's a matter of tweaking the proportions here and there to fit the range of sizes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's the paper describing Gualicho for reference: [64]. At this moment, I think it is thought to belong to Neovenatoridae, but darn Deltadromeus demonstrates that it could be a noasaur, ceratosaur, coelurosaur, or something new... --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I know how to best generalize the skull so that it won't be considered inaccurate later on. Shorten the shout so that the very front of the premaxilla is at the back of where the nostril is currently. If Gualicho is a neovenatorid, its a basal one, and it probably had a skull more like Neovenator than Murusraptor. If Gualicho is a noasaurid, it would have a skull about the same proportions as I propose, being in between taxa like Masiakasaurus and Limusaurus. If Gualicho is a coelurosaur, it would also have a slightly boxier skull, only derived taxa such as Xiongguanlong, Alioramins and Murusraptor have the very slender snout. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the coloured image with your proposed changes, IJReid. If it is satisfactory I will go ahead and edit the scale diagram and then update the article with the new images. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it looks good now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I have updated both files and added them to the article. Paleocolour (talk) 00:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool! It would be a good idea to make similar edits to your Skorpiovenator and Aucasaurus size charts, too. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see the old restoration was removed, was anything wrong about it? FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • It seems to fit the skeletal nicely. I think that I can squeeze it back in somewhere. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Fukuiraptor  Done

{{done}} I have cleaned up this skeletal diagram of Fukuiraptor that was uploaded by Marzio Mereggia, found here: https://maiorz.deviantart.com/art/fukuiraptor-139616072 It was uploaded with CC3.0, and while I have improved the contrast it has not been modified otherwise. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The image of deviantart was Creative Commons - No Commercial - No derivatives, which means that its not allowed for use on the wiki. Also, the No Derivatives suffix was also violated by your derivation of it, so I'd say it has to be deleted. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have flagged it for deletion. I will remove this section when that goes through. Paleocolour (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Just leave this section here, we will archive all this page after the year ends. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:42, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, its always good to keep stuff "for the record"... FunkMonk (talk) 15:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus  Done

{{done}}

Not particularly happy with the Argentinosaurus size charts that we currently have, so I went ahead and made my own, with a skeletal of the known remains. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The only real issue is the overall placement of the vertebrae. All of them are dorsals, which means that they all should fall in the space between the forelimb and the pelvis. Just shift them each back ~2 vertebral lengths, and reduce the spacing between the unknowns, and you should be good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What are you basing the reconstruction on, out of curiosity? Any, if that's the fibula, doesn't it go in the back of the leg...? Lusotitan 15:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The silhouette is mostly based on Dreadnoughtus. Are the bones in the correct places now? Also, do we want a grid? It helps to give a better understanding of size, but with dinosaurs that held their necks up high, it can confuse. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

The vertebrae are in the right spots now. But you've also forgotten to include the partial sacrum and the femur. The placement of the fibula should also be moved backwards. See: https://pre00.deviantart.net/3dc1/th/pre/f/2017/283/3/9/argentinosaurus_huinculensis_skeletal_by_spinoinwonderland-dbcv53f.png IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Better now? (The sacrum and femur were not illustrated by Paul, but I guess this explains the size estimates for the sacrum.) --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I'd say the skeletal looks good. Maybe add in a thin grid so I can see what it'd look like? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

What do you think? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah forgot to mention this earlier. The neck and the tail should be similar lengths as Argentinosaurus is related to Patagotitan. This means the neck should be shortened maybe 3 meters, and the tail should be lengthened at least 3 meters. The head may also be too large proportionally. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks more Patagotitan-like now. Is it ready? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep I'd say it does. Second opinion: add {{done}} in the header and a comment. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Where do you think it should go in the article? In the discovery section or replace Matt's image? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

How about in the discovery section? It does display the known material. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally think the head looks a bit large, but I suppose that's an unknown. Closing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Rajasaurus  Done

{{done}}

Restoration

Noticed this image on the Rajasaurus article, which, of all things, is a GA (although given the complete lack of a classification section I'm doubtful if it's fully deserving...). Anyway, the restoration in question seems to completely lack hands, just having some sad looking stumps. Also got some heavy shrink wrapping, and I'm sure a more theropod-centric guy could find more errors. Is this worth salvaging? We do already have another (very beautiful) restoration in the taxobox. Lusotitan 23:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Slate Weasel planned to draw a Rajasaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is very inaccurate, and is also tagged on such on Commons. As I mentioned earlier, I was planning to replace it with the size comparison image once it's done. We already have a good restoration by DBogdanov... Note that Dinoguy2 removed the claws/some fingers of many abelisaur restorations back then they were thought to be missing, so if you look at earlier versions of the images, they usually have hands, and could just be reverted to. But this image has other problems, including the sunken fenestrae. If you find other abelisaur restorations that could be discussed, just post it in this section, then we can see if we can fix them. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It will be a while before I can get to this guy (I'm sick right now), but there is quite a bit of whitespace in the article, and I'm shocked that it reached GA status without a Classification or Paleoecology section, so we could expand it quite easily. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It is one of the older GAs (nominated in 2009 it seems), so that should explain it. Until recently, some of the older FAs didn't even have palaeoecology sections... FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Raja is also on my list, so if Slate can't get to it, then I can take over if need be. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I found another one on Commons, but it is even worse accuracy-wise: [65]. Feel free to start, Fred. Quilmeosaurus is a bigger priority for me. --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Restoration of Rajasaurus narmadensis based on GSI 21141/1–33.

Scale diagram of Rajasaurus narmadensis (GSI 21141/1–33).

I have put together a sketch of Rajasaurus for the article. I spoke with Fred Wierum and he agreed to let me take it off his shoulders. I emphasised the rugose texture on the snout. Please let me know if any changes are needed, otherwise I will continue with the colouring + scale diagram (and perhaps a face closeup to replace the one currently in the article here. Paleocolour (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the proportions. Rajasaurus is a derived majungasaurine, and therefore should have derived majungasaurine proportions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on Majungasaurus, I think that the torso should be longer, the arm should be longer, the metatarsals should be shorter, and the shin should be a lot shorter. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It also seems like the illium in all abelisaurs I can find data on is level with or slightly higher than the back. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is roughly the idea. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the image. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good now, looks pretty hotdog-ish now. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the top of the illium be level with the back as in Majungasaurus? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I have coloured the line art and also created a scale diagram. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I do agree. I'll add it to the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Gasosaurus  Done

{{done}}

Full body reconstruction of Gasosaurus constructus.

Scale diagram of Gasosaurus constructus.

I have created a reconstruction of Gasosaurus constructus based on skeletal images I could find online. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Looks good! What is the head based on? The skull isn't known, so all reconstructed skeletons have weird, fabricated skulls. Considering its phylogenetic position (some sort of carnosaur), I would assume it had more prominent lacrimal horns and nasal ridges? FunkMonk (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe it's based on this particular mount. The skull does look pretty weird. Have carnosaurian affinities for Gasosaurus achieved any widespread consensus, though? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

When reconstructing this Gasosaurus I did not use any of the skulls that were present on the skeletal reconstructions as no skull remains were found outside of a few teeth. Particularly with those skeletal mounts, the skulls looked poorly proportioned and I wasn't sure of their validity. I based this particular reconstruction on a generic Carnosaur style skull, but opted to not include any crests as I was aiming for a more conservative reconstruction.Paleocolour (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The skull is acceptable, and if it seems to me like a generalized carnosaur. Only that I was looking at the diagrams of the fossil remains of this site [66] and those made by Gregrory S Paul, and I noticed that the arm is a bit thin, compared to the humerus. Which is relatively broad. And the hips are too big when compared to the pelvis. Very good job, and welcome to the project. Levi bernardo (talk) 22:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Even with the slightly thin arms and wide hips, is this acceptable? I made the reconstruction more bulky than usually portrayed to avoid the shrinkwrapping trope. It's just difficult to alter these things at this point.Paleocolour (talk) 05:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I don't know if the proportional issues would be a significant detriment to accuracy, it's best if you post WIP sketches so that anatomical errors can be fixed early. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, if consensus begins to favour this as a carnosaur, the absence of any lacrimal horn would contradict phylogenetic bracketing, as it is present in pretty much all carnosaurs, as well as some coelurosaurs (which it may also be). There would also be published precedence for illustrating the dinosaur with this feature, in pictures by Gregory S. Paul[67] and Mark Hallett[68], so it isn't exactly controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Added it to the article, in any case, this is the most accurate restoration of this dinosaur we have. FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Paleocolour could you update the leg proportions of your restoration to match the skeletal we now have? I think the main thing is that the metatarsals need to be longer (almost the same as the tibia length). The femur might also be too long. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the reconstruction to be more in line with the skeletal diagram. Changes include: metatarsals longer, femur shortened, head modified to better reflect skeletal reconstruction, colouration altered, scale detail added, torso lengthened. I have also created a scale diagram with the updates. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

They look good now. {{done}} IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Argyrosaurus  Done

{{done}}

Argyrosaurus

I got some advise from IJReid during the first 2015 review[69], but kind of forgot about this old sketch since. But yesterday I gave it some colour, any further issues? I'm not sure, but should it maybe only have three hind claws instead of four? FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks mostly good. Most sauropods restorations have 3, I'd go with that. I'd also say the toe claws are too straight on. Usually sauropod claws point outward like seem here [70] I'd also maybe 'Titanosaur-ify' the skull a bit it currently looks a bit like a prosauropod. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I know that it should only have 3, Shunosaurus is the most derived taxon with 4 besides maybe Dyslocosaurus. Theres this nice image here showing the forelimb in anterior view, so that'll be what I base any comments on the known anatomy on. The forelimb looks about a good robustness, although I think the coracoids should be more anterior in the chest. There are a few little things, like no teeth being visible, or lowering the snout. I don't think there's anything else really off. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to fix these things soon. I've never really been a sauropod-anatomy buff. What could the head be based on? I intentionally made it generic, maybe too much, because there seems to be a dramatic range in titanosaur skull shapes. From Malawisaurus to Nemegtosaurus, there seems to be little common ground... FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe Malawisaurus is considered to possess an unusual morphology, with the nemegtosaurine skull being plesiomorphic. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unclear at this point how many titanosaurs supported a Malawisaurus-like head. C,D,E and F in this image might help. [71] Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I think I did all the fixes, how does it look now? I tried to make it look like the coracoids are closer by changing the lighting (not that they would really be visible under the flesh anyway). FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I think it looks better. Theres really nothing else I see thats wrong. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, Photoshop's warp-tool is a life saver... FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see another life restoration for this guy, as the article now lacks an illustration after I removed the weirdly-proportioned old one. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems there isn't much room for the image in the article, though, but that's what happens when you restore dinosaurs nobody cares about... But someone's gotta do it! FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Tagging this {{done}}. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Piatnitzkysaurus  Done

{{done}}

Piatnitzkysaurus floresi skeletal reconstruction based on PVL 4073.

Hello again, before making my tweaks to the Chuandongocoelurus skeletal above, I practiced with a reconstruction of Piatnitzkysaurus floresi. This was created by looking at photos of both this and this skeletal mount. The adult size estimate was determined through the skeletal diagram of the animal shown in this paper. Please let me know what you think, and if any changes should be made. I would like to create a fleshed out reconstruction of this animal when this has been agreed upon. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking it would be good to indicate which parts are unknown? Otherwise we indicate that more is known than really is... Also, I'd recommend basing skeletal diagrams on figures of actual bones in journal articles; mounted skeletons have the problem of being heavily reconstructed, and photos tend to have distorting perspectives... FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It's come to my attention that there is a debate about whether Piatnitzkysaurus was a megalosauroid, basal tetanurine, or ancestral abelisaurid. There is some discussion about it here, here, and here. The skeleton I used as reference seemed to have a skull based on a carnosaur. Seeing as the wikipedia cladograms have classified Piatnitzkysaurus within Megalosauroidea, should I instead base it on that? Also, yes, that is a good idea, I will create a version of this skeletal diagram that shows only the bones found once I can find a paper that describes them all online. Thanks for your help. Paleocolour (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that at present Piatnitzkysaurus is accepted to be a basal megalosauroid, so when skull bones are unknown, it may be possible to restore them after Monolophosaurus, Cryolophosaurus, or Megalosaurids, depending which have the bones known. IJReid ^discuss 14:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the file with your suggestions. I also found a book which describes the bones in the shoulder area and updated the image accordingly. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks great now. I'd support putting it in the article. IJReid ^discuss 14:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As long as it reflects published information, yet isn't derivative, it's all good. It's harder with skeletals, because they have to be very rigorous. I'd also list the sources used in the file description. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Piatnitzkysaurus floresi reconstruction based on PVL 4073.

I have drawn a reconstruction of Piatnitzkysaurus floresi. Please let me know what you think and if any changes need to be made. I gave it a slight ornamental crest that is somewhat speculative.Paleocolour (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

The crests should be okay, since most reconstructions show them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the usage of speculative adult size. Especially since it's not mentioned on the taxon's page itself, it comes across as being very much WP:OR. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I based the adult size estimate on the skeletal diagram shown in this paper for both the skeletal reconstruction and this reconstruction. I admit the Wikipedia article does not contain the estimate, but I believe it should be updated to include it, along with other information to help fill it out overall. I can make an edit to this reconstruction to show the fleshed out version at sub-adult size, and the estimated adult size in the background as a silhouette if you think that is a better idea. Paleocolour (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be preferable. The paper does not give any numerical estimate for the reconstructed length, so the 6.6 m figure would probably fall under the umbrella of WP:OR. Additionally, the paper does not give a rationale for the reconstruction's aberrantly large size. It could simply be an error. I am not particularly trusting of it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've updated the image to reflect the changes you've suggested. Any further tweaks needed? Paleocolour (talk) 11:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Paleocolour I think the point was to remove the 6.6m sizes from both images completely. You can note the specimen is subadult or juvenile, but don't include predicted adult sizes. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:56, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I have updated both images to completely remove the adult size estimates, and also removed the size chart on the skeletal diagram as it's redundant to have that alongside the full size chart. Hopefully this can bring this review to a close. Paleocolour (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

This is {{done}}, I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Skorpiovenator Scale Chart  Done

{{done}}

The lower size estimate of Skorpiovenator.

In addition to the Ornithomimus Chart, I also created this one for Skorpiovenator, which is known from rather good remains. Any problems/suggestions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Best to stick with the lower estimate, which has actually been peer-reviewed as opposed to Greg Paul. Otherwise, I have no comments, but of course I would appreciate those of additional editors. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Nothing too obvious about the silhouette sticks out as being wrong. I'm not sure how the arms would appear, and thats a debatable topic. The tail might be short, or it might just be weird abelisaurid proportions. IJReid ^discuss 03:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't actually know the arms of Skorpiovenator, but I was thinking of having them in a position similar to [72], but I also am not totally sure if they could go all the way up. We also don't know the tail, but I was suprised because tail restorations were a lot shorter than I had expected. I'm not sure if I should give it a longer tail or not. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

OK well then if it's unknown then we can't say it's wrong. It can be added to the article now if there's room. IJReid ^discuss 23:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Scale diagram of Skorpiovenator bustingorryi.

Full body reconstruction of Skorpiovenator bustingorryi.

Hello, I have created a reconstruction and size chart of Skorpiovenator. The line art was drawn by D-Juan of Deviant Art, and I have his permission to modify, colour, and upload some pieces of his art. I can provide this proof if needed. The size chart includes the largest estimate by Greg Paul, and the most recent estimate by Grillo, O. N. and Delcourt, R. I feel it represents the general size consensus. The coloured reconstruction uses the same lineart by D-Juan. Please let me know if any changes are necessary. Paleocolour (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The manual unguals seem to be missing. Granted, we do not have the manus of Skorpiovenator, and abelisaurids did reduce their manus, but even the very derived Carnotaurus still has a few unguals... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It has been suggested there were no claws, it seems.[73] FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

As Albertonykus remarked somewhere above: "Burch and Carrano (2012) suggested that the supposed metacarpal IV spike is actually one of the manual unguals" for Carnotaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned that there's a single specimen of Skorpiovenator, its fairly complete and articulated and the length from the tip of the premaxilla to the 12th caudal is 4.35 m, taking this into account Paul's larger estimate would nothing more than an increase in tail length, to portray such estimate as a larger overall animal goes 100% against the fossil evidence, the same goes for your Aucasaurus size chart too. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have updated both images with all the changes described here. I removed the upper estimate for clarity's sake, and adjusted the fingers. I also improved the colouration of the life restoration so it's more realistic and easier to see features. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 16:08, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's good, I think. Anyone else? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, Paleocolour, if the line art was drawn by someone else, they should be credited in the file description on Commons in the author-field (goes for all such images), now they seem to be mentioned outside the templates, which makes it very hard to notice. To prevent that someone challenges the permission, it may be a good idea to confirm it through OTRS on Commons:[74] FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the file authors and descriptions to credit the appropriate author. Paleocolour (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Turanoceratops  Done

{{done}}

Life restoration of Turanoceratops tardabilis

Scale diagram of Turanoceratops tardabilis

I have created a life reconstruction and scale diagram of Turanoceratops. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 21:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, the eye seems a bit big, but eyes are usually larger in smaller members of a group... FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The size looks correct (using Paul, 2016, who restores it as slightly smaller, but I think it works for both estimates). --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Cetiosauriscus redo  Done

{{done}}

Cetiosauriscus

I think we can all agree that my old Cetiosauriscus was really an ugly image, so I've redone it, and made it look more like the basal mamenchisaur-grade taxon Tschopp et al find it to be. Current line drawing is here, with just the basics to get corrected before more detail and colour is added. This will be one of my contributions to getting this year as the most productive ever for the image review (59 subsections, just below the 62 of 2010). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Aww, the old one was kinda charming! Can't see anything wrong at this stage, but remember to indicate roundness of the belly with some shading when you get to that point. And yeah, the extreme turnover rate this page now has is also partially what has kept me from posting anything for a while; the section would be pushed back so fast that I and everyone else would forget it before I even get to do corrections. FunkMonk (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've decided to upload the new version over the old one, it may have been charming but it was pretty badly inaccurate. I plan to remove the background and artifacts once the image gets accepted accuracy-wise. I do think I've gotten better at drawing plants :) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Could the next have curved that sharply? Lusotitan 03:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe so. Mamenchisaurs and relatives would have had among the most flexible sauropod necks, more than brachiosaurs, as they had more cervical vertebrae which were shorter, so the same degree of flexion would allow more overall movement. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Sad the top of the tree is cropped! I don't know too much about sauropod body anatomy, so I'll let others comment on that. It may be good to draw the roots ending in slightly more different levels, to give a better sense of perspective, similar to how the dinosaur's legs are not completely parallel. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah ok. I'll give the roots some perspective. Maybe I'll also add in the tree top again, give it some size perspective IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}::}} 15:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've added more roots and extended the image up to the top of where I've drawn the tree (close enough to the top of the tree anyways). Anything else? I'll ping Jens Lallensack and HMallison as the resident sauropod/posture people. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 20:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Background is cleaned. Anything else? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Pentaceratops Size Chart  Done

{{done}}

I'm not sure if we ever came to a conclusion on this guy. Is it okay? Should I add quills of some sort? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's fine, I think. Waiting for a second opinion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd say it is good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Added it. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus  Done

{{done}}

Carcharodontosaurus reconstruction

Starting on Carcharo. Talked to Tomopteryx prior and he suggested I use the reconstruction here [75] (fifth down). Fred Wierum (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been told that GetAwayTrike's work is unreliable. Lusotitan 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the skeleton isn't known, as long as the body matches Giganotosaurus, you can't go wrong. The chin should be more prominent, as in Giganotosaurus, since this is diagnostic for carcharodontosaurs (though the lower jaw isn't known in this particular genus). It should have a more vertical front edge, and a short process downwards. Paul gives a good silhouette restoration of the unknown parts in his Field Guide. It is strange, Sereno even mentions the "squared anterior end of the lower jaw" as uniting carcharodontosaurs in his 1996 description, yet the physical skull reconstructions he supposedly oversaw don't show this feature... It also seems the back margin of the head is drawn as concave, whereas it should be more convex due to musculature. You also seem to have increased the size of the hands since your last version, but that's not in line with at least how the non-preserved hands of Giganotosaurus have been interpreted. The small pectoral region indicates small forearms overall. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes added Fred Wierum (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, that's all from me. Note I also modified the old DBogdanov restoration just a few days ago to get in line with some of what I said above (and to remove the copyrighted photo used as background)... But the result isn't great, the original was unsharp for some reason, and that doesn't look good without a background, so the new image is welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I cant seem to find the Paul restoration of the skull, I assume the one on Carch's wiki page is just as good? Fred Wierum (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Paul's is more appropriate, since it shows what's known and what's not. It also shows the "chin" with a more vertical profile. Here is a phone picture of it:[76] The maxilla looks slightly less complete than it is drawn in the Sereno description, no idea why... FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I think it would be better to the proportions of this one (It's based on Scott Hartman's Giganotosaurus, which seems to be more accurate/reliable despite being older than GetAwayTrike's version): https://imgprx.livejournal.net/bcf5e5801d351dac95122683c36140a9e5a90fb0/guWz124OK3Qwf6d7cI_47d8hJq-kvoB7lTlDiXmXDfzxU9RGRRtTGCRVepKmRKj7Vkb8rGetIwkkzOyjRpGSrQ Also, why the lips don't cover the teeth entirely? Lips that don't cover the teeth completely are pretty much unlikely from what I've read, as the lips loose their function if they don't cover the teeth completely. Other than Masiakasaurus, Ceratosaurus and semi-aquatic dinosaurs (spinosaurids), it's pretty likely that all theropods had lips which covered their teeth completely.

I have altered the body to that of Hartman's Giga over a day ago, and the oral tissue isnt half covering the lips. I didnt show this in detail in the initial sketch but it's meant to resemble alligator oral tissue. Fred Wierum (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

^ This is the sock. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I get the expression Fred Wierum (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I.e. the same user who previously edit-warred trying to add your dromaeosaur restorations everywhere. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems the stupid "lips for hydration" idea is still flopping around, though it isn't even published. The "theory" is easily falsified by the various extant, terrestrial animals which have exposed teeth covered in enamel. Also, the drawing has already been modified to match Hartman's Giganotosaurus skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Rendered. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think the teeth on the far maxilla and premaxilla should be at least partially visible. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You sure? I based the oral tissue on alligators and gave it the same amount of keratin (which isnt very much). Fred Wierum (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the skull isn't deep enough for the teeth on the far side of the head to be completely hidden. There should be some sign of the head having a 3D depth, with some aspect of the far tooth row visible. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That I can agree on. Forgot about the right side. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok we were confusing different parts of its anatomy :) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely more accurate than the old NT restoration, so that could be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

As always, it's beautiful, just an observation, it doesn't seem like the postorbital is as big as it should be, I hope you don't mind me superimposing Paul's skull on it, but there you can see that it looks as if only the posterior half of the postorbital is there link. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose? I tried merging Paul's and Sereno's together [77] to make a more general and balanced reconstruction since Sereno's had more information on the back of the skull compared to Paul's empty black space. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Went and fixed it anyway Fred Wierum (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I would have given it scutes on the tail and metatarsals as per Concavenator and would have given it "lips", but as these points are both subjective I have no problems with the illustration as is. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

yeah, I forgot to do the tail scutes. Will remember to add eventually. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Would we call this completed or is there anything else to be altered? Fred Wierum (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly accurate enough by now. I'd say the tail scutes are as optionable as those leg feathers we talked about earlier, also being based on phylogenetic bracketing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Added Concavenator tail scales. Fred Wierum (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Seems the stupid "lips for hydration" idea is still flopping around, though it isn't even published. The "theory" is easily falsified by the various extant, terrestrial animals which have exposed teeth covered in enamel." Mark Witton begs to differ despite he mentioned some exceptions to the "lip-rule". Also, it's just me, or the skull looks too elongated? It almost looks like the inaccurate "Pinocchio-snouted" Giganotosaurus skull restoration in my opinion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giganotosaurus.jpg We have a skull restoration of Carcharodontosaurus here which takes the squared jaw of Giganotosaurus into account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carcharodontosaurus_skull_diagram.jpg and here it is with the jaws attached to each other: http://rs1153.pbsrc.com/albums/p504/Spinodontosaurus/Scale%20Chart/Acrocanthosaurus%20Carcharodontosaurus%20skull%20comparison.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip and it looks less elongated to me than in the restoration. Maybe it's just the perspective though...

No, Witton specifically expressed doubts about the "hydration" theory in that blog post (and in the comments), what he does state, though, is that covered teeth seem to be the norm among tetrapods (with some notable non-aquatic exceptions), but we don't know why, and he proposes no reason. As for the skull length, an image with the Sereno reconstruction superimposed on this image posted earlier[78] showed that the skull is at least shorter than that. It also matches the shortened Greg Paul reconstruction perfectly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I misunderstood the post then, but the lips still seem to be quite likely. Also, would somebody superimpose this one: http://rs1153.pbsrc.com/albums/p504/Spinodontosaurus/Scale%20Chart/Acrocanthosaurus%20Carcharodontosaurus%20skull%20comparison.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip on the restoration too? It's a bit different from the one made by Sereno (e.g. shortened and square-jawed like that of Greg Paul's, but different overall), and I'm interested how would it look.

Uf. This is the sockpuppeteer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, this gives me the opportunity to point out that, like I mentioned below, Thomas Carr is the main force pushing the "no feathers for Tyrannosaurus" idea, yet he is also against lipped tyrannosaurs. So you'd imagine people cheerleading for lips would also be cheerleading for feathers, though our sock-puppeteering friend here seems to take an unholy middle ground... And no, calling people "feather Nazis" doesn't exactly help your case.[79] FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As per Funk's suggestion, I've gone ahead and replaced Nobu's old illustration with Fred's; it's more accurate and overall just looks more professionally-done. Raptormimus456 (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Daliansaurus  Done

{{done}} I noticed this animal has no images on its page, and as I've already done one I figured I may as well put it up. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Daliansaurus life reconstruction by Tom Parker, pencil 2017.

I'm not totally sure whether Daliansaurus would have had leg wings or not. There's Jinfengopteryx, the possible troodontid, that has no leg wings that I can see, Jianianhualong, a general troodontid, that preserves decently large leg wings but no foot wings, and Serikornis, a paravian, with large leg and foot wings. Since Jianianhualong seems to be closest related, perhaps you should add leg wings, but it could be argued that Jinfengopteryx is a better comparison. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Pedal ungual IV looks too short and not robust enough compared to the ungual II. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

We do not have a pedal ungual II from this animal. Tomopteryx (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes we do. Incomplete, albeit, but enough to infer what I described. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Tomopteryx, could you address at least address IJReid's comment? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Neovenator  Done

{{done}}

Artistic reconstruction of Neovenator salerii

Rough sketch, but a guide to what direction I'm going. I assume scales are the preferred integument. Fred Wierum (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

May want more specialized integument on the face per Barker et al.... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the external implications for that would be, but Darren Naish, one of the authors of that paper, has a restoration supposedly based on it here:[80] FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Would it be fine to give the same facial integument as Darren's? Fred Wierum (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, he only says " Large keratinous sheets on the altirostral snout of a big theropod (‘altirostral’ = narrow and tall-sided) might result in a very different look. I’ll leave this matter alone for now" and "Ultimately, however, our work doesn’t help that much on this issue. The external bone texture and large number of foramina suggests – we think – that a thick external tissue covering was present in Neovenator, and that this covering involved immobile tissue, albeit not rhamphotheca" there. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

OKay, it was really confusing because crocodiles where referenced yet Darren's Neovenator profile illustration (compared to the skull) has, what look like, thick monitor-like lips. So I'm a bit confused as to what is being pointed out. Perhaps the they had the same crocolidian sensory system but could have been executed either with "lips" or croc-like keratinous snouts? Fred Wierum (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite vague in the text, but I assume he included that drawing because he though it was accurate... Anyhow, he discusses the issue an hour into this podcast[81], I don't remember exactly what he says, but may be worth a listen... FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Listened to it, and both the Neovenator and Daspletosaurus papers seem to agree that there were highly sensitive systems in these dinosaur snouts but they still disagree on whether or not they had extensive oral tissue like monitor lizards or more cornified keratin like that of crocodiles. So I'll just give mine lips like Darren's illustration since, according to their read, they didnt see any specific evidence for crocodilian scaly faces in Carr's paper, despite that subject boomed to much in popular media. Fred Wierum (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think anything goes until there is concrete evidence, which we will probably never have... That won't stop the debate, though... FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Updated to the linework. Fred Wierum (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm wondering whether it would be a good idea to have ridged crests like those shown by Naish... Anyhow, it would probably be good to show many small "spots" around the snout, which Naish says corresponds to the sensory apparatus in crocodiles in that blog post. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Should have scutellate scales on the foot, perhaps. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ready for another checkup. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It would appear the old restoration doesn't really match the fossils around the lacrimal horns? The head also seems small, and the hip/leg joint seems kind of disconnected, so perhaps it should just be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Archaeoceratops Size Comparison and other stuff

Main point of this segment

Wow, a lot happens when you're gone! I have recently been working on 3 things. First, I have recently been thinking about Archaeoceratops for no reason, so I decided to create a size chart for it. (I'm not sure if I'll ever use this style of chart again, but I wanted to give it a try.) It is based on this [82].

Second, I have recently been updating some of my older unused images. I have made a list of them below:

• File:Carcharodontosaurus Scale.svg: Revise and add skull material for C. saharicus.
• File:NMC 8547 Chasmosaurine Size.svg: Quills. I'll get to the ones I should actually use someday.
• File:"Antarctosaurus" giganteus Size Chart.svg: I fixed the back.
• I will get around to fixing the Futalognkosaurus chart sometime soon.

Third, I'm wondering if we should make a shortcut for this page (such as WP:DINO/IR or WP:DINO/ART or something similar). That's all for now. Corrections/comments/opinions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(By the way, the button is pretty neat! Sorry for not mentioning it above. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC))

Hehe thanks for the appreciation of the button. I think the Archaeoceratops comparison looks nice, but perhaps modify the scales so that the 1m lines are thicker than the 10cm lines? Also, the reflections should still retain proportional sizes, with the cat head being level with the back (not quills) of Archaeoceratops. IJReid ^discuss 19:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the cat's reflection, thanks for catching that! I tried darkening certain lines but there weren't enough to create an obvious effect. I also forgot to mention that the size estimate comes from Greg Paul (which means that I'm not 100% sure that the outline is of the correct species...). Any other problems? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Those quills seem rather different from those preserved in Psittacosaurus in terms of length and distribution. Speculative variation? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Heh, the only reason I did this is because everyone else seems to do it, too. I don't think its that big of a problem, but other editors may disagree. --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm unsure on the inclusion of the skull for Carcharodontosaurus. None of our other size images do that, and it's a bit jarring without the lower jaw as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Tyrannotitan Chubutensis

I apologize for accidentally skipping the review stage of posting pictures. My mistake. In anycase, I'd like to get some opinions on this Tyrannotitan reconstruction I did. I made this because the current reconstruction on the page, while amazingly drawn, has a bit of a dynamic pose. I figured there should be one with a more neutral pose, though still alive looking. The refs I used were http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063409, along with https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/41633284/A_large_Cretaceous_theropod_from_Patagon20160127-7390-o9smpt.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1506786220&Signature=JJRvDWZfTIdJOgqynCGc4G3xydE%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DA_large_Cretaceous_theropod_from_Patagon.pdf. I also used the skeletal reconstruction on the main page as a ref.

If I missed anything, I'd love to know.

It looks pretty good. It's based on probably the best Carcharodontosaurid mount, so thats a bonus. I'd recommend that the tail is straightened, and perhaps 3D-ize the head so that the tooth row on the side away from the viewer is visible in the mandible. IJReid ^discuss 15:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The tail does seem to maybe curve too strongly at the base compared to the mount it is based on. Not sure whether the bones allow this. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the lower jaw seems a bit deeper than in the mount. The limbs, neck and torso all look good. --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Omeisaurus

Omeisaurus

I created this image of Omeisaurus. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems very skinny? And is it rearing horizontally somehow? I'm not sure that would have been possible, sauropod rearing has only been suggested as using the tail as a tripod... FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Which bits are too skinny? I was thinking that it was in the process of rearing, so I lowered the tail a bit. Does this look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The skinniness is probably caused by a lack of shading, the belly doesn't look rounded. As for the rearing, I'd imagine the front legs not leaving the ground until the tail was planted for counterbalance (or at least not before the weight had shifted backwards)? Now it looks like it would tip forwards. We of course can't observe live animals, but we can imagine what would be natural based on logic. Walking With Dinosaurs did some pretty nice sauropod rearing[83], I think their Diplodocus shots are probably the ones that have aged best of all the animation in that series... FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Also - I'm not convinced by the blue background... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that I will trace over the original image and redo the thing almost entirely. That will take awhile, so I'm not sure when I'll get around to it. I think that Paul may have a rearing Omeisaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Funk, I think the stomach needs that large herbivore rounded look. Regarding rearing; it depends on the sauropod. Heinrich Mallison thinks that Diplodocus would require half as much effort to rear than an elephant, its center of mass is almost at the hip joint. Elephants appear rear quite easily without long tails to help but due to their muscle setup they have to bend the knees quite strongly in order to do so. Paul argues that all sauropods are better adapted for rearing then Elephants (Heinrich disagrees about brachiosaurs). Paul thinks that Sauropods that have retroverted pelves, like Camerasaurs, Memenchisaurs and (I think) Omeisaurus, might have been able to walk around bipedially for short peroids, without needing to bend the knees; not dissimilar to what you have drawn. My only criticism is that for it to look realistic, at least one of the legs needs to be far forward enough to be under the center of mass, wherever that is in Omeisaurus? I don't know of a study that's looked into Center of Mass in Omeisaurus but the center of mass is usually just forward of the pelvis in most Sauropods. Neck posture makes a difference to the center of mass; considering yours is posed with its neck out-stretched, I'd move at least one of the legs forward more. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait a second, where exactly are we planning to fit this in on the very short Omeisaurus article which already sports three images, including a perfectly serviceable reconstruction? This seems unnecessary and potentially awkward. Lusotitan 00:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a second, slow down now. Slate Weasel which species is this. I know we have an O. tianfuensis, but I've heard rumblings of a splitting of Omeisaurus/Mamenchisaurus, and O. tianfuensis is generally thought to be the most questionable species of Omeisaurus. So having a decent illustration of O. jungishiensis might not be a bad thing, especially if we get around to expanding the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is O. tianfuensis. I made it because it was suggest that there was no tail club. Also, I think that we could really expand the article. I'll work on a update when I have time, but that will be awhile (I caught a cold right after I finished this image). In the meantime, I'll find my text file on this guy. Here is a helpful link: [84] --Slate Weasel (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Albeit NOT a citable one ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Australian Titanosaurs from PLOS One

• 
• 

These images are from a scientific paper, but the seem to have poblems. Shouldn't Diamaninasaurus have just one row of osteoderms on each side. They both a a thumb claw, but as titanosaurs, they should not. Also, Wintonotitan has hooves on its front feet and an extra claw on each back foot. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Should be possible to fix most of these issues. However, I'm not convinced we should restore every single titanosaur with the exact same osteoderm configuration just because a single researcher has proposed it completely hypothetically... FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that there is no evidence for either having osteoderms:

The ‘osteoderms’ attributed to QM F6737 and figured by Molnar (2011, fig. 2A–G) are actually the dorsal neural spines B and C from the holotype of W. wattsi (QM F7292), which were not figured by Hocknull et al. (2009). [...] The ridges identified by Molnar (2011) as keels were reinterpreted as the pre- and postspinal laminae, whereas the camellate internal texture is at odds with that described for any other sauropod osteoderm (D’Emic et al. 2009; Curry Rogers et al. 2011). Consequently, there is currently no evidence for osteoderms in Australian sauropods (D’Emic et al. 2009), despite the recent reinstatement of Diamantinasaurus as a lithostrotian titanosaur (Poropat et al. in press).

Poropat et al. (2015)

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some other weirdness with these restorations too... The feet are very long, and the teeth almost look glued on... Kind of an "impressionistic" style... But that also means it's easy to modify in Photoshop. I can fix the yellow one at least. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Diamantinasaurus and Wintonotitan would both have a thumb claw, so that is a non-issue (Diamantinasaurus preserves one, and Wintonotitan is basal). I'm not quite sure how the osteoderms would be arranged in Diamantinasaurus, there are no related species that preserve them, so maybe we leave them as is until a paper discusses them? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, how could I forget, the claw is shown on this photo I uploaded myself:[85] It seems to be directed backwards in the restoration, though? FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it sort of looks like its on Digit V instead of I. Weird. I also thought it would not be used for walking? --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There's also a weird gap between the torso and the leg in the background, making it look like it's not attached (for Wintonotitan). --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's supposed to be Backlighting (lighting design), there's a bit on the front limb too. The tail/leg attachment seems a bit weird, like it has sagging pants... FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I did some fixes to the Wintonotitan (compare the current and older version), it could probably be modified further, but now it at least isn't downright inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I completely removed the hooves. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That looked more like random skin-folds to me (the hooves were at the front), but alright. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• Diamantinasaurus: This one has serious problems. It should have no osteoderms for starters, but it's caked in them, and I don't think that I have the skill to take all of them off. The tail also is covered in crocodile-like scutes that form distinct joints. The thumb claw seems to be in the wrong spot, and it has some hooves on its hands that shouldn't be there. Anyone feeling up to fixing all of this or should we just make a new one instead? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree the limbs should be fixed, but again, I'm not sure about the osteoderms. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence in this case, sauropods are now often depicted with many outlandish spikes, crests and wattles without any proof, but osteoderms are known from some specimens. But with animals as fragmentary as this, absence isn't really proof of anything. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Re osteoderms: I agree with Funk that just because they arn't known, that doesn't automatically mean it didn't have them. Osteoderms are quite wide spread aross the titanosaur tree but rare. I don't think anyone can criticise us if we do or don't include osteoderms in taxa for which there is no evidence. I don't think we have to show just the Vidal, 'one-row' interpretation if we do include them. What I will say is there is no evidence for ankylosaur like osteoderms that I have heard of. That doesn't mean that no titanosaur had that type of arrangement, we just don't have evidence for it. Based on the fact most known scaley dinosaurs have 'feature scales' and in some cases that prutude out as bumps, spikes or plate-like things, such as the 'spikey' diplodocid specimen, I wouldn't be suprised if some sauropods 'looked' more armoured then the osteodology suggests. I'd say we can keep the osteoderms; just make it clear in image descriptions that any spikes, wattles, osteoderms are hypothetical/speculative so the viewer isn't mislead. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• I've now also fixed the feet and head of the Diamaninasaurus. The skull in this silhouette[86] by the same authors seems to be more Nemegtosaurus-like. Of course, anyone is welcome to do further adjustments, but I think both are now correct "enough" to be in their articles. And by the way, Slate, watch out that you don't lower the resolution of images when you update them. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I think I saved a smaller copy of the image. I'll be more careful in the future. :) --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Quilmesaurus

I'm ready to start working on this, but I still need a skeletal for reference. Could someone give me a link to one, please? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your best bet is Hartman's Aucasaurus, considering its phylogenetic position. Carnotaurus is probably too derived. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... which parts of Quilmesaurus are known? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Easiest way to find out quickly is usually just to check the Wikipedia article. It says only a femur and tibia are known. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded the lineart. Figured that I would make sure it was okay before coloring. Also, feel free to make a flipped version for cladograms - I seriously don't mind. Is the dino okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Went ahead and colored it... --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about those snout stripes. They seem too smoothly-defined for a real animal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Are they better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the article, as the stripes seem to be the only problem and not very visible at 250px, but I would still appreciate additional input. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to take a little more time and smooth out the colouring and shading, and adding more texture. Using a different brush type in GIMP can add decent texture in regions where it should be added (snout, limbs etc). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually colored it with Inkscape. I made some finishing touches with GIMP as you suggested, with special emphasis on the snout. Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it looks ok now. I'll let someone else look over it and tag this done. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Saltriosaurus

Just started this today. I followed the tradition set by the Museo dei Fossili di Besano in basing the body on that of Sinraptor (skeletal reference here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sinraptor_dongi.jpg). Wanted to know if nostril/eye placement, silhouette and proportions were correct before adding colour/scales and/or protofeathers. Don't worry, final product will be done with proper scanner. Having problems illustrating feet. Thanks in advance. Mariomassone (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this dubious taxon needs a restoration, nor am I confident that any attempt at a restoration would be a rigorous interpretation of the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

In which case, seeing as the illustration has already been started, let's just call it a generic allosauroid for the time being. Is there anything I should know/fix before proceeding? I was thinking of giving it a dark greyish skin with yellow-bellied slider-type banding (not an archosaur, I know). Mariomassone (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The articulation of the feet look off. I don't know enough about perspective to comment more specifically. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Teeth dont seem to be the right shape nor does the amount look correct. I do agree with Lythro, the perspective does look off despite having traced from a skeletal mount. The animal's right ankle is thicker than the left despite being further away. As well as the right arm being unusually thin. Not to mention the end of the tail has this abrupt decrease in width where the image you used as reference stops. Fred Wierum (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: @Lythronaxargestes: Uploaded bodily modifications. Still need to do the teeth and figure out perspective. Mariomassone (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: @Lythronaxargestes: Fixed teeth. What part of the body appear to be out of perspective?
I also feel it necessary to provide an explanation as to why I'm trying to reconstruct this admittedly dubious taxon. I'm living in Italy at the moment, and there's been a veritable dinosaur boom in children's books recently since the release of Jurassic World. I've already seen some of them use the Commons images already present here, and think it's pretty much inevitable that they will include sections on Italian dinosaurs. As Saltriosaurus is pretty much the biggest theropod found there, it's only a matter of time that some book will include an illustrated section on it, fragmentary or not. I wanted to provide an image which was at least approved by experts, before some amateur illustrator came and just rendered it as a knock off JP raptor or T. rex style movie monster. Mariomassone (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then you seem to be misguided by what we do here. Because, as you can see through all the submissions of art and discussions on removing unreviewed works,there isn't really any pop culture bias in any of these reconstructions (at least for the thorough ones). So fearing a highly inaccurate reconstruction on any dinosaur wiki article is pointless. All of us here are taking our spare time to help this online encyclopedia grow and remain as fact based as possible. No need to get worked up over the influence of Jurassic Park, so you should rest easy. Fred Wierum (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This page at least doesn't have the problem of JP/pop culture influence, but if you look at Wikimedia Commons, where our images are hosted, there are loads of inaccurate paleoart, including photos of JP inspired models all over the world. So in that sense, it is good to counter such images which accurate, reviewed artwork, since a large percentage of the stuff that gets uploaded is never actually reviewed. Also why we need to tag all inaccurate images on Commons as such[87], to warn people who might want to use them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: You misunderstand. I wasn't talking about the reconstructions here. I was talking about book authors, finding no PD Saltriosaurus reconstructions, would just make a random reconstruction without any thought on proper anatomy and/or phylogenetic bracketing.
Back on topic, are the teeth okay? Thanks in advance. Mariomassone (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Mariomassone There are no real issues with the body, except that the fingers seem too short and the hallux sticks out. I'll say its accurate enough for now, but you'll have a pretty hard job of shading it to make it look convincingly like perspective and not bad anatomy. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

IJReid Thanks IJ, I've hidden the hallux and lengthened the fingers somewhat. I've also closed the mouth to avoid the stereotype of perpetually roaring theropods. If the modifications are alright, I'll proceed to the shading and colouring. Mariomassone (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep go ahead. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Done for now. Not entirely satisfied with shading, though can't figure out why... Mariomassone (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's too light on the posterior neck and tail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Albertosaurus

Albertosaurus

I'm working on a series of 20 pencil drawings. Here is the first: a life restoration of Albertosaurus, which seems like it could use another life restoration. It is based on Paul's 2016 skeletal. It is taking a walk (which, strangely enough, theropods are rarely shown doing) through a fog. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeing quite a bit wrong [88] [89]. Try also to clean up your pencil work. It's a bit messy. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Most of these changes should not be too hard to make in GIMP. I will re-upload when finished. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• I wouldn't say Albertosaurus is the most likely candidate for something needing a new restoration, it already has quite a few, but maybe there's room in the palaeoecology section or something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ganzhousaurus

I've long wanted draw a dinosaur with dodo-like features for some reason, so I thought an oviraptorid of some sort might fit the bill, and chose Ganzhousaurus, which is image-less. Here's the rough sketch[90] so far, any thoughts? It is based on various "ingeniines", as Ganzhousaurus itself is pretty scrappy. Perhaps the legs are too stumpy, too much dodo-influence... FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty scrappy... but I'll check the fossil material. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The description is online here[91], it's just a leg, a mandible, and some vertebrae... FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's phylogenetically close to Nemegtomaia, check against that taxon's skeletal maybe? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Where did you see that? In the description at least, it seems to be in a polytomy with various other taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's in the Tongtianlong phylogeny. In the meantime, I've made a silhouette based on your Nemegtomaia: [92] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Heh, cute, that's not entirely "mine", though, I just drew a silhouette around the skeletal diagram in the Plos paper... As for phylogenetic placement, seems to be inconsistent? Maybe other studies place it in yet other positions... I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm, the Beibeilong phylogeny has it as being much more basal.... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's probably how it goes with specimens that fragmentary. It's probably also just a synonym of one of the other oviraptorids from the formation, but we'll probably never know... I'll just keep it generic, though with short "ingeniine" fingers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Did some cleanup and changed proportions without "connecting the dots, so it looks a bit broken, any thoughts?[93] FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking good so far... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Just so I don't forget this, here's a WIP with some colour blocked, head and next are close to done:[94] FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the thing in colour. Any toughts? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Eolambia skeleton

I've gotten around to finishing the Eolambia to the best I'm willing to do right now, I have too many things going ... The large individual is the holotype, which is an adult, and the small individual is the OMNH v864 specimen, the smallest articulated individual. I'm worried about adding the isolated bones, because of a lack of cross-scaling, and I'm also wary of FMNH PR 3847, because it is a subadult larger than the holotype, and can barely be cross-scaled with the others. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes should be our resident expert on this taxon. What are the lifted hind legs doing? If they are supposed to be lifted, it seems weird they would be posed as if planted on the ground. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't posing them as lifted, they're placed as planted. I can change that if people want. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Manual ungual I should perhaps be straighter and more conical. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Since I assume you're talking about the pollex (thumb claw) I changed it and made it better. Anything else really? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Neovenator size

Neovenator Scale

I decided to make a new scale diagram for the Neovenator page. The size is based on the holotype specimen, and the unknown elements are based off other related Charcharodontosaurs. I did not include the dubious "MIWG 4199" as its position in Neovenator is unfounded. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, I think that its far better than the old version. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Second that. But remember to use more specific categories than "dinosaur" on Commons! FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for changing that on the file! DaCaTaraptor (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool image. I don't see anything wrong. --Slate Weasel (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Images by User:Oktaytanhu

• 
  Allosaurus and Epanterias
• 
  Giganotosaurus
• 
  Mapusaurus
• 
  Carcharodontosaurus
• 
  Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Mapusaurus, and Tyrannosaurus
• 
  Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus
• 
  Tyrannosaurus

Browsing on Commons again. I know that we already have scale charts for most of these articles, but I thought that you guys might still like to have a look at them anyway. Some of them are also used in English Wikipedia articles. They seem reasonably accurate, but I do see some problems (e.g. dragging tail on Trike), but do you guys have any further input? --Slate Weasel (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A number of those images were uploaded by the Hungarian sockpuppeteer. We're not going to use those for sure. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Who made them? FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that we'll find all of these images are copyrighted. For example: I looked through Iguanodon images and found this: [95] which is identical to the iguanodon scale diagram. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ouch, all the user's uploads should probably be nominated for deletion then... FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Xenoposeidon

Okay, it's probably pretty foolish of me to even attempt a simple silhouette right after its classification has been switched from Euhelopid to Rebbachisaurid, but here it is anyways. Is it okay? Also, is it worth it to put it in the article? --Slate Weasel (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not bad, but the back and pelvis should be taller, as rebbachisaurs have tall neural spines. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I used Nigersaurus as a model for the posterior backbone. Does it look better? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it looks better. Just so you know, this image would also be fairly accurate if Xenoposeidon was "somphospondylan", as it has a long neck and Wintonotitan-like proportions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Can it be added to the article now? By the way, the dino is pretty much a combo of Huabiesaurus, Nigersaurus, and some other generic sauropods for the head (Diplodocus and Tapuiasaurus mostly). Didn't realize that there was a third possible option. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps add it AFTER Taylor's preprint is peer-reviewed... ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus

a scale restoration

Here is my restoration of C. ellioti. if there are any changes to be made, please let me know. Also, i've read that some hypothesise it to have been feathered, should i include a feathered version?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC) also i am aware that the page for cryolophosaurus already has a restoration, i just figured it could use a full body view as well.

This is another case where I ask where you suppose this would fit on the page; it's pretty full on images already, and has both a size chart and life restoration, meaning there's no urgent need. That said, the article could probably use another pass anyway, so perhaps expansion could be made allowing it to fit. Lusotitan 01:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

it possibly could fit on the left hand side of paleopathology or diet. or perhaps the image used in the decription could go there, as it is scavenging in the drawing, and this could take its place in description? also what do you mean expansion?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Either of those locations would cause it to indent headers. Lusotitan 03:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

what about underneath the restoration of the head?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of placement in the article, the restoration could use a little work. The skull doesn't follow with that of a crestless Dilophosaurus, which it should. The premaxilla should be smaller, and the top of the snout should be convex or straight, not curvy in both directions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Why is the snout concave at the top? I can't think of any theropods that look like this. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

is this any better?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. But I just noticed it looks like the dewclaw on the right foot is behind the foot? It should be on the inner side. Also, the tail area and other parts looks pixelated, could be cleaned up. You should upload new version on top of old versions of an image, not as new files. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

will fix the dewclaw and try to clean up the tail. thanks Dibrangosaurus (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC) anything else that should be fixed? Dibrangosaurus (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

What's this based on? Using Scott Hartman's skeletal, the legs look too long and thick, the tail too short, the body too big, and the skull a bit too deep. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure much of that isn't really known, but yeah, aqlways good to state what a restoration is based on. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

i mainly used this reconstruction for the head and legs https://www.google.ca/search?q=cryolophosaurus&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdxKzZitrXAhUp6oMKHe5EAr0Q_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=783#imgrc=IGPsqR-vz2gdDM: and i used the size chart recently made by Slate Weasel. i will go make those changes, thanks. Dibrangosaurus (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC) so it's still a little meatier than hartmans but the proportions are much closer i think Dibrangosaurus (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It is probably not the best idea to base life restorations on other life restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

i just meant the proportions really Dibrangosaurus (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Zuolong skeletal

I have just finished a Zuolong skeletal that was requested by someone I know, and they didn't mind if I uploaded it here, so here it is. The known material is based on the description and figures from Choinere et al 2010, and the unknown material is based mostly on Huaxiagnathus, Sinocalliopteryx and Sciurumimus, all of which are known from good, nearly complete skeletons. The scale bar is 1 meter, and the light colours indicate known material (white is known external bones, light grey is either palate, braincase, or sacrum). Dark colours indicate unknown material (partial bones or unknown braincase). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems a little confusing that you have two shades of grey, with the darkest shade supposedly showing unknown parts? Anyhow, the meaning of the shades should be stated in the image description. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Falcarius

A scale Falcarius restoration

hello again. i've created this reconstruction of Falcarius utahensis using the skeletal by scott hartman: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/theropods/falcarius. are there changes that should be made? Dibrangosaurus (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Where is the third claw on the right hand? Also, the left hind foot seems overly twisted, and the external nostril probably shouldn't be a horizontal slit along the length of the bony nostril. The snout seems short and blunt compared to most reconstructions. The borders of the image should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

okay thanks, i have made the changes. is there anything else? Dibrangosaurus (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Not off hand. But remember to upload on top of the existing file instead of as separate file each time you make an update. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

can i upload it to the page. and yes sorry i forgot, but why is that? Dibrangosaurus (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Why you have to update the old image? So there aren't a lot of inaccurate images floating around, and to not waste possible file names. FunkMonk (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

is there a way to delete old files?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I have redirected them to the new files. FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ah, thank you. will upload ontop of files in the futureDibrangosaurus (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem. There is no evidence of pennaceous feathers in therizinosaurs, so I wonder whether that kind of wings would be probable. Maybe someone else will chime in on this issue... FunkMonk (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

okay how's this? i added them as a possibility Dibrangosaurus (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I must say it seems a bit distracting to have such an insert. Better to have two different files to choose from in case. Could also be a solution for the Sinotyrannus above. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

okay i have made said changes. i tried many times to update the original file but every time it wouldn't let me. sorry for inconvenience Dibrangosaurus (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to refresh the page for the new version to show, maybe that was the problem? FunkMonk (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

no that wasn't the problem. it said it was a duplicate file and it wouldn't let me update despite being two separate files. Dibrangosaurus (talk) 02:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

T. rex restorations by Mark Witton, Mariomassone and Jose Asensi (Durbed)

T. rex restoration by Mark Witton

T. rex restoration by Mariomassone

T. rex restoration by Jose Asensi (Durbed)

Any thoughts on these? AKMadRex (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The legs on the Durbed image seems very massive. The ears seem to be in the wrong place, in a fenestra? Also, not sure about those Jurassic Park horns? The Mariomassone image also seems to have the ear in a weird place. The dewclaw looks massive in the Witton image... FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Jose wrote here: https://durbed.deviantart.com/art/Life-of-a-Tyrant-vulnerability-687257519 in the comments that: "The ear is meant to be located in the joint between the skull and neck, but it looks closer to the temporal fenestra due to the perspective on the head. Maybe I still placed it a bit too close to it tho." and: "The horns are not meant to be JP like actually, I kind of used the same style as Saurian's T. Rex which I've grown fond of." AKMadRex (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder what actual evidence the horns are based on... Other tyurannosaurs only have lacrimal horns in front of the eyes, not above. Though I think I read something about some detached elements that may have been something from above the eye? As for the ear, it also seems to be too far up, at least when comparing it to Scott Hartman's restoration:[96] FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I guess the same things would be true for his Tarbosaurus: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tarbo.jpg and I don't know if his Nemegtosaurus: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nemegtosaurus3.jpg has problems or not. AKMadRex (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The placement of the ear seems better in the Tarbosaurus, and it at least doesn't have those horns. The nemegtosaurus was removed from the article before because of the spikes. Not sure what to think about it, but there is no evidence for that feature in the genus, which is most likely the same as Opisthocoelicaudia. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we should focus on that those detached elements are really may have been something from above the eye or not. AKMadRex (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to be a certain Hungarian guy? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like he was, he's blocked now. As for the images, the tail in Durbed's illustration is curved very sharply. Possible? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not sure, but at least it wouldn't be as inflexible as that of a hadrosaur... FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Halszkaraptor

had to do this guy. Tomopteryx (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction of Halszkaraptor escuilliei with plumage and swimming posture based on birds that use wing-propelled swimming.

Looks good, anyone know what the rationale for the webbed, wingless hands is in the press release restoration? Kind of glad it's not reproduced here... FunkMonk (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

No, I don't know. There is no discussion of such in the paper. Tomopteryx (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks fine in the article. Also strange that none of the press-release restorations show it swimming, even though that's what they're making a big deal of... Note that we already had photos of the specimen since 2011. Unless anyone doesn't want "spoilers" as for coming attractions in dinosauria, there's the "unidentified dinosauria"[97] and "unnamed dinosauria"[98] categories on Commons... I've seen a lot of exciting stuff there that wasn't named until years later... FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Halszkaraptor restoration

Life restoration

Do we really need another restoration? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fine, one shows it swimming, the other shows it on land, and there will probably be plenty of room in the article. I wonder why the legs seem much skinnier in this image, though? The tail also seems shorter here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if there are proportional issues with both this one and Tom's restoration... I scaled them all to the same head size [99]... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Something that stands out to me right away is that the present restoration does not have a tail fan, unlike Tom's. May account for tail length. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Cruralispennia

Hello, I recently created this reconstruction of Cruralispennia and I would like some feedback to see if I've done anything wrong. I also would like to upload the file to my deviantart account, but I don't know if there is a policy against doing so here.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem having files both here and on deviantart. Since you uploaded it here there are no necessary things for it to be on deviantart, but if you upload something there first you need to use a CC-BY-3.0 license for it to be usable here. I have stuff both here and on my DA, as well as a few others who are here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, but seems the fingers are too short? Compare the size of the feet in the skeletal diagram with the fingers. And no, there is no problem with having images both here and on Deviantart, as long as you make it clear in the file description on Commons that you are the same person. We have some people who falsely upload Deviantart images here as their own... FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I had a bit of feedback from deviantart which recommended that I obscure practically the entire hand, and so I have done so. Nevertheless, thanks for the advice, I left in the tip of a claw but made it a little further down the wing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, problem solved then, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus skeletal

I finished up this skeletal today. Is it OK? --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

That's on odd image to base it on; I couldn't tell you anything about the fine details, although I'm not sure about the length. It's perfectly within what's been suggested, but I'd make it a bit shorter. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

At the time, it was the only one I could find. --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I asked around and I'm what I'm hearing is that this is showing bones that aren't preserved in the specimen? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Which ones? The grey ones are labeled as not being there, but are there others? --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I quote: "It has way too many bones portrayed as preserved; Carcharodontosaurus only preserves one cervical and one caudal: doesn't preserve any rib; only preserved one femur and one fibula; and no dorsals; Also Carcharodontosaurus holotype didn't preserve gastralia, so that's wrong too; Oh and it also didn't preserve tibiae or phalanges.". The text on the page would seem to support this, no ribs or gastralia are mentioned, and claws are but not toe bones. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 18:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Whoa... I'll remove the parts that I know shouldn't be there, but could you give me a link to a skeletal to confirm where the other bones are? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The Franoys one should be reliable enough (he's the one who gave the feedback on the extra bones); in terms of something showing only preserved portions, all I can find is the SpinoInWonderland one, which I'm not keen on leaning on as a source. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmm... I think that the actual caudal vertabra is the one that is not shown connected with the others. Using this logic for cervicals, that leaves 2 options. However, I think doing that falls under WP:OR or something of the like, so I'll wait to do the changes. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

The issues that the skeletal has along with the issues that it had don't give me enough confidence to say that you have based it on the publications on the animal, which have the information that you need and that you should use, you can't ask for an skeletal made by another person as a main reference for your own. First, SGM din 1 doesn't preserve nearly as many bones; most of those that you marked as preserved belonged to the destroyed holotype, IPHG 1922, described by E.Stromer (1931) (everything post cranial can't belong to SGM din 1). The holotypic skeleton has almost no overlapping with the neotype, only some fragmentary skull bones, and it seems to have been slightly smaller; therefore they can't be scaled to the same size.

The preserved bones of IPHG 1922 include two pieces of the left maxilla, piece of the right maxilla (lost before description) pieces of the left and right nassals, partial braincase, teeth, three cervical vertebrae (axis, anterior cervical and middle? cervical) . That skeletal marks 3 as preserved and either a posterior cervical or an anterior dorsal that shouldn't be there. Only one anterior caudal is preserved in IPHG 1922, yet that skeletal shows 4. Part of one rib is preserved in IPHG 1922, yet the skeletal shows none. Most of the pubis was preserved in IPHG 1922, which the skeletal doesn't show. It also didn't preserve anything from the ilium, yet this diagram marks a portion as preserved.

Finally, I need a solid reason as to why the head is so proportionally small and how the whole animal was scaled, as well as to how the mass was obtained. The small headedness is not coherent with the remains of the closely related Carcharodontosaurines Carcharodontosaurus is nested with in the most recent phylogeny dedicated to Carcharodontosauridae/Carcharodontosaurinae (Canale et al 2013). Giganotosarus has a 153 cm skull according to it's original description (Coria & Salgado 1995) and has a mount 12.2 m long, according to Carpenter and Currie (2000) and Coria and Currie (2006) and Carcharodontosaurus skull is incomplete, the preserved portion of SGM din 1 is only 128 cm long (Sereno et al 1996) and the complete skull could very well have been 153 cm too as Larramendi and Molina got (Larramendi, Molina, 2016), coherent with the condylobasal length reported in Carrano 2012 (142 cm), "Phylogeny of tetanurae", both authors coincide that the premaxilla it was restored with when published was too long. However, comparing whole reconstructions of skulls can be tricky, and when compared bone by bone, the preserved portions of Giganotosaurus bones are larger in bone surface.

If we were to use Tyrannotitan then Carcharodontosaurus would have been more compact bodied, as the skull remains of Tyrannotitan suggest a skull of equivalent size to that of SGM din 1 and Giganotosaurus, but has short dorsal vertebrae, indication of a short torso, most of the dorsals are under 14 cm long, with only two being 15.2 and 15.8 cm long respectively, according to the supplementary materials of Canale et al 2014. That compared unfavorably to theropod dinosaurs that we know surpassed the 12 mark, Giganotosaurus (Mucpv Ch1) has several dorsals over 18 cm long, the largest dorsal of FMNH PR 2081 (T.rex) is 20 cm long, and both theropods had the same ammount of presacral vertebrae as Tyrannotitan (23). The proportions of the forelimbs and their size related to the body look nothing alike those that are described for Tyrannotitan in Canale 2014 and for Mapusaurus in Coria and Currie 2006. Furthermore, the image has aspects to it that could get you in trouble as they indicate plagiarism, as it is almost identical to the schematic skeletal on Sereno's page. https://paulsereno.uchicago.edu/discoveries/carcharodontosaurus/

You have to draw the preserved bones using the scientific publications. Those that I cite here are an excellent start, as are a few others.

I hope this comment will be useful to you, and I'm sorry for rejecting the image, but the work uploaded here needs to be rigorous, a lot of way more rigorous skeletals of numerous animals don't make it to the page because original research is regarded with a lot of caution, so this definately shouldn't in it's current state.

References:

P.Stromer 1931 II. Vertebrate remains from the Baharîje Beds (lowermost Cenomanian). 10. A skeletal remain of Carcharodontosaurus nov. gen.

Rodolfo A.Coria, Leonardo Salgado (1995) A new giant carnivorous dinosaur from the Cretaceous of Patagonia. Nature, Vol 377 (September 21 1995)

Paul C. Sereno, Didier B. Dutheil, M. Larochene, Hans C. E. Larsson, Gabrielle H. Lyon, Paul M. Magwene, Christian A. Sidor, David J. Varricchio, Jeffrey A. Wilson (1996): Predatory Dinosaurs from the Sahara and Late Cretaceous Faunal Differentiation. Science, New Series, Vol. 272, No. 5264 (May 17, 1996), pp. 986-991

Currie P. J. & Carpenter K. 2000. — A new specimen of Acrocanthosaurus atokensis (Theropoda, Dinosauria) from the Lower Cretaceous Antlers Formation (Lower Cretaceous, Aptian) of Oklahoma, USA. Geodiversitas 22 (2) : 207-246.

Fernando E Novas, Silvina de Valais, Pat Vickers-Rich, Tom Rich (2005): A large Cretaceous theropod from Patagonia, Argentina, and the evolution of carcharodontosaurids

Coria R. A. & Currie P. J. 2006. — A new carcharodontosaurid (Dinosauria, Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of Argentina. Geodiversitas 28 (1) : 71-118.

Matthew T. Carrano, Roger B. J. Benson & Scott D. Sampson (2012): The phylogeny of Tetanurae(Dinosauria: Theropoda), Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, 10:2, 211-300

Juan Ignacio Canale, Fernando Emilio Novas & Diego Pol , Historical Biology (2014): Osteology and phylogenetic relationships of Tyrannotitan chubutensis Novas, de Valais, Vickers-Rich and Rich, 2005 (Theropoda: Carcharodontosauridae) from the Lower Cretaceous of Patagonia, Argentina, Historical Biology: An International Journal of Paleobiology.

--Franoys (talk) 02:14, 5 january 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I think I'll just scrap the project for now and possibly redirect the file to my size comparison of C. saharicus and revert that image, that skeletal has serious problems. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

To help be sure that this image won't be used, I removed it from this discussion. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If you've abandoned the idea, can we file this as done? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Ouranosaurus

I've created this Ouranosaurus restoration, but I'm not sure about how it ended out. What do you all think? PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Good to see you add your image here! While some parts (the head) look pretty good, I do see some problems right away. Based on Paul (2016) the tail and neck are too short, the shin and metatarsals should be longer, and the sail/ridge/hump seems a bit off. Also, both the right arm and leg are being raised? That seems a bit odd, like it's going to fall over. --Slate Weasel (talk|contribs) 13:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I'll take note of those things. I did notice some of them myself, such as the sail/hump, didn't quite end out with the right shape, and the tail is definitely too short. I might remake this drawing in the future, so thanks for the tips! PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Aucasaurus Done

Scale diagram of Aucasaurus garridoi.

I have created a scale diagram and reconstruction of Aucasaurus garridoi based on Scott Hartman's skeletal reconstruction. I want to note that I had drawn manual unguals, but after downscaling they seem to have disappeared into the pixelation. At any rate, they are so small I think it's negligible. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I approve of it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned somewhere above by User:Mike.BRZ, the only thing that should be different in size is the caudal length, as both estimates are based on the same specimen. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ekrixinatosaurus Done

Scale diagram of Ekrixinatosaurus novasi.

Skeletal diagram of Ekrixinatosaurus novasi.

Skull diagram of Ekrixinatosaurus novasi.

I have put together some diagrams of Ekrixinatosaurus novasi from two other artists with their express permission. I can provide proof of permission if you need them. The artists are credited in the file descriptions, and I have archived the sources using the Internet Archive site for the future. For more information regarding the skeletal and skull diagram please see the file descriptions, they contain the source material that Joseph Shanks used when creating the diagrams. Please let me know if anything needs to be tweaked. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Joseph has reconstructed Ekrixinatosaurus with the "spike-like" "metacarpal" on digit IV of the manus. This is likely incorrect. IV should be more stubby, and the "spike" is actually one of the other manual unguals somewhere in II-III (which should be reconstructed similarly in my opinion). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the shading on the face should perhaps be modified to better show the cornified integument that was probably present in life (and has been illustrated in the lineart). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally, other editors may or may not concur with me on this, but I think the title on the skull diagram is redundant. That's what the caption is for. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

• On a copyright note, you have to go through this (OTRS) process when uploading the works of others to prove their consent:[100] But if the images are already on Deviantart, you just have to list a valid license there, and link to the page. FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It also looks like there's an ungual on every digit of the manus except on the one that there should be? --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Spinosaurs  Done

Here are two size charts that I created for Ichthyovenator and Oxalaia. Sources are listed in the file description. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator's skull looks way too thin. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Smooth out the kink in the neck, I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Did that fix it? Is the Oxalaia okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Silly me, forgot to upload it! :P --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Are they okay now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Spinosaurs themselves are fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Added them. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note on the man again, why is his leg on the right bent like that? It looks like he would not be able to carry his weight, and he would tip over forwards. His body is shifted towards that leg, so it should be the straight one, and the one behind should be the bent one. Or more naturally, both should be straight. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The idea was that he is walking and one of his legs is further forward. To see if this was biomechanically possible, I stood in this position, and it seems to work. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I considered that, but it seemed kind of nonsensical, but then again, dinosaurs are usually portrayed mid-stride... FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the easy fix is to rotate the left foot so his/hers not pointing opposite to the right. Also, the Oxalaia should probably have its other foot visible and planted forward, so it doesn't look as front-heavy. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)