Hello. Let me know if the [[Aysheaia]] page would benefit from the addition of this image. [[User:PaleoEquii|PaleoEquii]] ([[User talk:PaleoEquii|talk]]) 06:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them 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 paleoart 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, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. Drastic 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 marked as such on Wikimedia Commons with the "Inaccurate paleoart" tag[5], so they can be easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during Featured Article reviews).
If image is included for historical value. In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Historical interest images should not be used in the taxobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria sufficient to remove 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: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: If a restoration of Castorocauda lacks hair.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
I found this Inostrancevia reconstruction at Wikimedia Commons. Artistically, it looks better than Bogdanov's reconstruction (which is now used in the article), but I'm not sure about the background. Any comments? HFoxii (talk) 04:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't overtly contain any of the common mistakes of therapsid reconstructions, as far as I can tell, but there is an abundance of minor quibbles I might as well bring up: It looks like it might have an ear of a sort I consider rather unlikely, but it's hard to be sure. The lips don't look particularly persuasive. It has the somewhat cliché patches of sparse fuzz common to therapsid reconstructions, which I don't consider particularly likely but also isn't impossible. The digitigrade feet seem a bit off; I suspect it's taken from a portrayal of a gorgonopsid walking even though this one isn't walking forward (I hope, given the cliff). The rictus looks a bit far forward to me, but then again, I don't know if anyone's really sure how to draw those. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The licencing seems odd. It is by Roman Uchytel, but uploaded by an Alex Uchytel? We don't have specific permission from Roman, then. FunkMonk (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted with Roman Uchitel by email in past. I don't know why he is authorized as Alex Uchytel on the Wikimedia Commons, but this is indeed the same person as Roman Uchytel. HFoxii (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're reviewing Uchytel's Inostrancevia, might as well take a look at these other unreviewed reconstructions & size charts. Including Uchytel's own size chart.
The "Evolution in the past" one is a historic reconstruction, so it should be left as is. That said, it's got a few inaccuracies: the Inostrancevia has ears and the Pareiasaurus are too lizard-shaped. Pretty much all of these should probably have lips that more fully cover the teeth, and Bogdanov's is looking rather shrinkwrapped. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having read up a bit more on gorgonopsians, it seems there is somewhat of a consensus they had plantigrade feet, yeah, I wonder if it's enough to tag images showing digitrade feet as inaccurate? Speaking of gorgonopsians, I recently modified the two previously unreviewed images below to remove hair and exposed incisors and precanines, as well as too obvious fenestrae and other things, but I don't think we necessarily need to jump on the fully covered saber-canines bandwagon, as this is not covered in any actual scientific literature, and as I usually like to point out, even Tasmanian devils often have the tips of their canines exposed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The shell of Plectronoceras had chambers and a siphuncle, which are structures for maintaining buoyancy, so it obviously wasn't a snail-like crawler like depicted here. The pinhole-type eye is probably correct, but it should have ten, roughly equal length arms and a siphon. Carnoferox (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reconstruction of Plectronoceras and a brief discussion of its life appearance in Kroger et al. (2011)[6]. Peterman et al. (2019)[7] also reassessed its swimming ability; although it was a poor swimmer, it was still capable of leaving the seafloor.
Thanks. The life reconstruction by Roach in Kröger et al. is very helpful. Cephalopods aren't really my thing, and I haven't been able to create much art lately, so hopefully somebody else will be able to provide a revised life reconstruction? Ornithopsis (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great! It seems to me that the shell should perhaps be a bit more curved (compare to Fig. 3 of Peterman et al.), but other than that I have no particular objections. However, I note this quote by Peterman et al: "...allowing [Plectronoceras] to sit on a soft substrate without sinking, and briefly push up off the seafloor with minimal effort." It doesn't sound like Plectronoceras was an animal that spent most of its time in the water column, even if it could swim a little. As such, while I agree that we probably shouldn't be portraying Plectronoceras as a snail-like animal, I think it would be a good idea to have a reconstruction of Plectronoceras resting on the seafloor in addition to this reconstruction of it swimming. There certainly doesn't seem to exist any art of a more cephalopod-like Plectronoceras resting on the seafloor, and that seems like something the world might need. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated my P. brasiliensis diagram, but now I have covered the DGM 527-R specimen based on its new description and the silhouette has been revised to have the proportions of a Caiman latirostris and an Aligator mississippiensis, this revision was done with the help of Jão. But anyway, do you have any thoughts on how I could improve the diagram?
Because Aureliano et al. (2015) uses the proportions of Caiman latirostris for their calculations due to phylogenetic proximity. --User:Megaraptor-The-Allo 12 Setember 2021 (UTC)
I'm thinking of adding this Microraptor recon to the article, but I figured I'd upload it here first to see if there's any tweaks I should make to make it more accurate. Thoughts? Entelognathus (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The teeth look much more widely and evenly spaced than in skeletal reconstructions? And the lower teeth seem too robust? The snout profile also seems a bit too upturned. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on 3d model in the new paper. As I can only get figures and not the paper itself, I can't figure out what the bone in purple is supposed to be as it isn't labelled in any of the figures, so I've left it blank for now. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So my old restoration[8] of Prorubidgea is now kind of outdated, since that genus has since become a synonym of Aelurognathus, and the specimen I based it on[9] appears to have a somewhat deformed skull that doesn't match the latest reconstruction of the skull of Aelurognathus. Since we already have other Aelurognathus restorations, and it appears only three gorgonopsian genera lack restorations here, I thought it would be a good idea to reshape it into Nochnitsa, which its deformed skull-shape matches much better than Aelurognathus anyway. Here[10] is the first attempt at reshaping (shape partially based on this diagram[11]), will make the claws larger and other things too, any thoughts? I've removed traces of hair (and eggs) from the original version, which may be iffy. Pinging MWAK, who commented on the original years ago. There were some concerns about this not being a plausible resting posture for a stem-mammal, but let's just say it's getting up from lying down... FunkMonk (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to give it a basal look by everting the elbows, the upper arm should be more horizontal. When it walked, the elbows were more tucked in and the humerus was somewhat elevated.--MWAK (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Checking for approval/input on this skeletal diagram of Toyotamaphimeia based on the holotype specimen (as I am currently overhauling that article). As the disclaimer says the ribs are not figured due to the fact that the description of the animals anatomy does not figure them in lateral view and mounts, while overall not always a great reference, also don't really have any lateral views of their ribs. The broken jaw and foot represent pathologies present in the holotype.
UPDATE: got in contact with someone who managed to provide a reference for the dorsal ribs in lateral view, image has been updated accordingly Armin Reindl (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say much about accuracy, but I think the ribs are a nice addition. I wonder if missing teeth should be shown as black in the silhouette? Looks a bit odd that the rest of the life silhouette is complete without the teeth. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the ribs had been more or less an issue of figured material and were ommitted for safety reasons in the first version until I could find an actual reference for them, I can overhaul it with the rest of the teeth as part of the silhouette, shouldn't be too much work given that all the alveoli are figured 09:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Extremely hard to see anything, remember, the purpose of Wikipedia illustrations is to show the anatomy or inferred behaviour of the animals, it's not really the place for All Yesterday's type experiments. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems obvious that deep under the water it is rather dark. In addition, the plesiosaurus itself is illuminated in the drawing, so you can see it well enough. HFoxii (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty hard to make out at thumbnail size at least, particularity because the right fins are cropped out, which makes it harder to discern the overall shape (I wasn't sure what I was looking at until I read the text). I think the reader would be helped by further brightness or other things that would increase the dynamic range, or by showing the complete animal. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if the image is to be used in an article, it has to be easily recognisable to help the reader with understanding the article to be in accordance with MOS:IMAGES. I also don't think that the darkness is realistic in any case; from this perspective, I doubt you would see the trunk in the first place when the head is already so dark. In addition, it also looks as if the neck would be very short; no idea what to do about that though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that we had three restorations of the same species of Nothrotheriops, N. shastensis, so I decided to just relabel mine as the smaller, less famous species, N. texanus, as I don't think their differences would be externally visible, but feel free to point out if I'm wrong, I'm trying to track down the original article. But since my restoration has been heavily modified since it was first reviewed here, and since the two others have never been reviewed, I thought it would be good to post them here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My old restoration modified and relabelled as N. texanus
I know we mainly deal with prehistoric reptiles here, so maybe it will be hard to judge this drawing of an obscure, modern bird, but I did a sketch of the recently extinct Rodrigues night heron eating a Rodrigues day gecko, based on photos of living relatives and the bones[13] (will colour it later, probably based on published restorations like this[14]). Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe moas are now thought to have habitually held their necks more horizontally. But I guess that doesn't mean they couldn't raise their necks up like that? Just wouldn't be typical. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Therocephalians probably did not have whiskers (see Benoit et al. 2016, 2018), so that should be fixed on the Bauria. That should also be fixed on Dmitry Bogdanov's reconstruction on the Bauria page. Personally, I wouldn't give it fur either, but I suppose that one's too controversial for us to take a side. I'm pretty sure the Mirarce is much too big—the tarsometatarsus is only 48 mm long, for instance, whereas it looks like it would be like 15 cm in this drawing. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a general tendency of feet and toes in NT's restorations being very lumpy to an unnatural extent, but not sure if it's severe and noticeable enough to exclude them, I just try to slim them down too when modifying other inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better! One more thing, though, is that the fact of Bogdanov's reconstruction still looks very mammalian, as though it had facial muscles—smoothing it out a bit to give it a more reptilian countenance might be a good idea. As far as color, amphibians and reptiles can be that shade of green, so I see no particular reason to assume such a color is implausible for a stem-mammal (at least, given that it's being depicted without fur). Ornithopsis (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a reference to its name, meaning "blue dragon", which I find slightly objectionable purely on grounds of being a bit on-the-nose. It's definitely pushing plausibility a bit further than the Bauria. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Di (they-them): If you want to criticise my tracing, then why don't you create a better one? It was a quick drawing I did in about half an hour so the article could have some kind of useful illustration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia: I didn't mean to insult. I wasn't saying that it was poorly-traced to hurt you, I was just saying that it was rushed and not of high quality, like you said it was done in o30 minutes. I'm not sure why you take offense to something you did in half an hour being called low-quality, it's nearly impossible for anyone to make good art in only 30 minutes. As for your response about Tamura's image, whether you care for it isn't the question I asked. I was looking to see if there was any scientific inaccuracy that needed to be addressed, not general opinion on its artistic appeal. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit off topic, but I read that the Yaghan people, despite living in the Southern Cone, went around mostly naked, and lit fires if they got cold, so warm clothing in cold climates is not a cultural universal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably true, though I would note that the official artwork accompanying the press release has him shirtless with only an animal pelt covering his loins. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I for one see no issue with the skull tracing and I agree that the CGI reconstruction is a little odd for the reasons pointed out by Dunkleosteus77. I also think the hair covering looks a bit strange but that might just be me. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the skeletons and up to date skeletals, Clidastes had a really large fluke portion of the tail. It would take up about half the length of the entire tail. Mettiina (talk) 10:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be that difficult to lengthen the tail, if that's what the consensus is. Since some of the bony tail is within the lower lobe, it may look shorter than it is? FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hoped there would at least one image left, but nope, so nice initiative. Looks good, matches the newest paper on skin-texture and fin-shape it seems. I wonder if the upper teeth are too backwards angled, even from this perspective? Compare to for example:[15]FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, some of the teeth definitely look too back-swept. It's unfortunate the Metriorhynchus rostrum lacks intact teeth. I'll correct this once I know if there is anything else that needs to be ironed out. Mettiina (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible nitpick I could think to make is that there could be a small tympanum visible, but even then I'd say there's an argument to be had if it would even be visible on the surface so I'm not even really bothered by that one. Looks great! DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 01:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the tooth orientation to better match that of relatives with preserved teeth, made the tympanum visible since there doesn't seem to be anything contradicting that being the case, and made a few other very minor tweaks. Mettiina (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
skull recon of Astorgosuchus, I based the general shape vaguely around Asiatosuchus germanicus and the featured material is the holotype material as figured in 1912 by Pilgrim
done to finally complete the article which I recently worked on Armin Reindl (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so you have access to the paper? Could be nice to also upload the original images. Could also state in the image description if it is taken directly from the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
the original paper sadly no, but the redescription as Astorgosuchus uses Pilgrim's figure of the holotype (plates XXVI and XXVII according to Martin et al.) with some minor modification (those being the addition of skull element IDs) Armin Reindl (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using the photo from the figures directly in your art is derivative work of the original, which is not allowed under Wikimedia Commons policy unfortunately. To be able to upload it, it must be entirely your own work. I would recommend just using colored sections to represent the known parts. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's allowed as long as the original image also has a free licence, but then the original license should also be listed on the file, such as public domain for this one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I made a mistake in thinking that the photographs were more recent. If the photographs are in the public domain, then they are fine to use. Again, my bad. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The figure itself is practically a 1:1 copy of one that was published in 1912 (making it clearly public domaine), any alterations made by the authors are not present in this imgage, tho I can replace the citation with a reference to the original publication if that helps Armin Reindl (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that apply here? Armin's artwork is using a PD photograph but is still his own work, and PD works by definition place no restrictions on the copyright of their derivatives. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legally it isn't required, but on Commons it is, at least they would ask for it during a FAC review. Also just to avoid confusion, as clearly already happened. FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What do the dotted lines represent? Those filled in white must be the skull openings, but what about the other dotted line at the rear of the skull? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
those represent the skull table, mostly to avoid confusion and give a general idea of the morphology (given how that entire area is lifted up from the rest of the cranium) but as the shape of it, much like the cranial openings, is unknown its merely dotted, since with this one I did not want to speculate too heavy given the enigmatic nature and overal not entirely certain phylogenetic placementArmin Reindl (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To all it may concern, I've started a regular deletion request and discussion for this image (though deletion is unwarranted in my opinion). Speedy deletion is not justified, as it is not a clear-cut case of copyright violation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bothriodon currently has no reconstructions on the Wiki, even appears to lack its own category on Wikimedia, so I uploaded the portrait I made based on a 3D scan of the skull. Mettiina (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice illustration! And for the specimen (MB.Ma.51832), I'd be pretty sure it's the same as the File:Ancodon americanus skull.jpg (peculiar coloration of third-to-last molars, left basisphenoid damage). I also found a paper on researchgate discussing the 3d scan methods that says the specimen known to be the one in the 3d model (see this figure)is labeled "Bothriodon americanus", just as the jpg file is.
But something imoprtant that the paper highlights is the taxonomic uncertainty of the specimen that you did your reconstruction on. Three possible options are that it belongs to Bothriodon, Ancodon, or Aepinacodon. But I guess it would just be fine to use this illustration for Bothriodon since the latter two don't have any wikipedia pages. Hiroizmeh (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, we should always remember to note the exact taxonomic identity of an illustration, at least what species it's supposed to depict. Especially since prehistoric mammals have so many species that it's important in case of later taxonomic revisions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the front of the bony jaw be much closer to the front of the silhouette's jaw? Also, there should preferably not be borders in images. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not an expert on these, but from comparing with photos of living bandicoot, the middle foot claw seems very large? It seems to be smaller than the hand claws in living species? And as long as the environment matches what it would have lived in (and the animal is visible enough), it should be fine to use either. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Perameles nasuta was the animal used for reference on the toes, they really do have very large middle foot claws. This is the image that was used as reference. I think that the size in the illustration is not outside the realm of realism, even if it might be slightly large proportionally. As for the environment, the Wikipedia page notes that its name is an allusion to its environment in arid habitats favored by modern bandicoots so it should also be accurate. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for approval for this skeletal reconstruction of the mekosuchine Kalthifrons to more or less complete my work on its respective article, the general shape of missing elements and sutures is derived from the work of Yates and Pledge (2017) with an additional attempt to depict a hypothetical uncrushed depiction of the skull Armin Reindl (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rhinconichthys
Rhinconichthys by DigiBd
Not convinced of the accuracy of restoration of this filter-feeding pachycormiform, the thinness of the body and the bulge around the head looks unnatural compared to other giant filter feeding fish, such as basking sharks and whale sharks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The official artwork gives a much more realistic impression of the drag created by opening of the mouth. I agree though that the boy proportions are accurate to bob Nicholls restoration. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to use it any time soon given that the creative commons figures from Ristevski et al. have that covered in the article, but I'd still rather get the review out right away regardless. Depicted are Paludirex vincenti and Paludirex gracilis, proportions are based on figures by Ristevski et al. Armin Reindl (talk) 13:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.png)
.jpg){kind=small}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prorubidgea.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://i.imgur.com/ai2SZAK.jpeg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://i.imgur.com/oCGgL3t.jpeg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://i.imgur.com/7NiHrcp.jpg){kind=link}
