Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[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 If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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

Images in review

Kelumapusaura

Found this image by Leonardo HerSan while reading about Kelumapusaura. It's very dark and difficult to see the subject clearly. Thoughts? SlvrHwk (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps more suited to a palaeoecology section than being a primary reconstruction. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 15:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• They also have this Rajasaurus image:[8] FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  As per usual, we're an encyclopedia, not an art gallery, and I'm not sure that Kelumapusaura illustration is ideal for encyclopedic purposes. However, the Rajasaurus image might be good on the Lameta Formation or Deccan Traps pages. Just to be sure, though, is it currently thought that large lava flows such as that would have been present during the Cretaceous? I know at least some of the volcanism is now thought to be earliest Paleogene. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

  The deccan volcanism is, last I checked, an intermittent occurrence spanning the end of the Campanian (? poorly dated at the bottom), entire Maastrichtian, and early Paleogene. The Rajasaurus fossils themselves are found between two of the flows, so its certainly not an inaccurate illustration. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Should get the inaccurate tag then. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I misread... FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• The artist has since uploaded more images and added them to articles, so probably good to have them all reviewed here. 13:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Cryolophosaurus
• 
  Cryolophosaurus
• 
  Megapnosaurus kayentakatae
• 
  Kelumapusaura
• 
  Rajasaurus

I wonder what the Cryolophosaurus skull is based on? It seems a little closer to the traditional "carnosaur" skull than new-look Dilophosaurus (especially in the tall snout). As before the landscape is a good image but not suitable for use.

The lack of lips on the Megapnosaurus is a bit of a weird choice. I think the image of the skull is also a little distracting. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

You may see it as a tetanurid skull because of the presvective, and I cannot plasmate the premaxilla so characteristic of this group if I have to put lips on it, however I must admit that making a dilophosaurid skull today is really risky and controversial .

Regarding megapnosaurus, the decision not to put the lips was because I made this sketch shortly after the study on the extraoral tissue came out.

I must also apologize for not reporting in this section but I was unaware of its existence.

Have a nice day Leonardo HerSan (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• Pinging the artist Leonardo HerSan so they know they have to put images for review here before adding them to articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

African dinosaurs

• 
  Angolatitan
• 
  Arcusaurus
• 
  Australodocus
• 
  Bahariasaurus
• 
  Deltadromeus
• 
  Dicraeosaurus
• 
  Elrhazosaurus
• 
  Ignavusaurus
• 
  Kentrosaurus
• 
  Lesothosaurus
• 
  Lycorhinus
• 
  Malawisaurus
• 
  Massospondylus
• 
  Nigersaurus
• 
  Pegomastax
• 
  Rebbachisaurus
• 
  Spinostropheus
• 
  Tendaguria
• 
  Vulcanodon

Hey y'all! Earlier this year I expanded the "list of dinosaurs by continent" pages, adding life restorations for whatever taxa have some on Wikimedia Commons. However, I realized some of them haven't been reviewed. Over a series of seven posts, I will submit here the files that haven't appeared on the review page. First up, the African dinosaurs.

So far, I only have a few comments:

- The legs of the Arcusaurus appear to be too short.
- The Deltadromeus is depicted as an avetheropod, but most recent analyses place it as a noasaurid, which would make it more gracile.
- Ignavusaurus is highly unlikely to have protofeathers.
- The Spinostropheus appears to have a too boxy skull. As a possible elaphrosaurine, it would have a slender beak.

I think like the Deltadromeus, it's position is too unstable for there to be a point in modifying this illustration instead of just using it as an example of one hypothesis. FunkMonk (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

- I drew the Tendaguria with proportionally long limbs based on Atlasaurus, which has been recovered as a possible turiasaur.

Other than that, I think they're passable. What do you think? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sauropod thoughts: Tendaguria absolutely should not be based on Atlasaurus. Atlasaurus has only rarely been recovered as a turiasaur, and no analysis that has included both taxa has ever found them to be closely related. Tendaguria's proportions should probably be based on Moabosaurus and Janenschia. It has been recovered as the sister taxon of Moabosaurus by phylogenetic analysis, and may be a junior synonym of Janenschia. There's at least one conference abstract indicating that the skull of Malawisaurus was less camarasaur-like than typically portrayed, but that study hasn't been published yet. The front feet of Vulcanodon should probably be less prosauropod-like, given the anatomy of Tazoudasaurus, and the hind legs look a bit overmuscled to me. IJReid's skeletal of Vulcanodon is pretty good, for comparison. No specific comments on any of the other sauropods for now, though I question whether the Australodocus reconstruction is actually at all useful. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I updated the Tendaguria. How's it look now? Miracusaurs (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Still needs a fair amount of work, I'm afraid. The chin should probably be more expanded, as in Mierasaurus and other turiasaurs (for some reason, Turiasaurus is often depicted with a Jobaria-like unexpanded chin, but this is incorrect). The eye is too big, probably shouldn't have a white sclera, and the ear is missing. There should be more of a connection between the back of the forelimb and the torso. The thumb claw seems a bit too high up on the forefoot. The forelimbs look too slender and the hindlimbs too birdlike; sauropod limbs were more evenly columnar, not so tapering. The hind feet are wrong; they should be plantigrade, not digitigrade, and the arrangement of the claws looks wrong. The general shape of the body in the hips-base of tail region looks kind of formless, and the tail seems to taper a bit too quickly. The shading could use some work as well. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• The Nigersaurus I believe is a model by Tyler Keillor for Paul Sereno, so should be fine, and the Pegomastax is from the Sereno paper that described that species. Unless inaccuracies are obvious, such restorations probably don't need to be posted for review. As for Deltadromeus, I don't think its position will be stable until more fossils are found, and there have been recent papers going in different directions. So like with the skeletal reconstructions, perhaps a restoration showing an alternate take would be a solution. FunkMonk (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've said before that for Bahariasaurus, we should have multiple life restorations if we have any at all, and the same probably applies to Deltadromeus. Reconstructions of it as a Limusaurus-like ceratosaur, Masiakasaurus-like ceratosaur, and Gualicho-like tetanuran would be good to have. Unfortunately, this reconstruction doesn't really match any of those, but it also isn't clearly wrong given the...uncertainty...over its relationships. Ornithopsis (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  It's clearly based on the old Sereno supervised reconstructed skeleton with the odd horns[9] from when it was considered a "basal coelurosaur", which would probably match a neovenatorid mostly. But note a newer, Sereno supervised reconstruction exists[10], which appears to be noasaur-like maybe? In the newest Sereno-related paper it's similar, but without teeth:[11] FunkMonk (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like there are a lot of other questionable restorations in the other lists of dinosaurs by continent, should also be reviewed here. Some of them are really inadequate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'll post some in the coming weeks. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Remember to slap the inaccurate palaeoart tag on the images that are found to be wrong but are not fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Miracusaurs (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

  Makes it much easier to identify and fix them, thanks. I see one restoration I made was also tagged, feel free to ping me if you encounter them so I can fix them. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• The upper beak in Lesothosaurus and those heterodontosaurs looks a bit too extensive to me, though it's a bit of a nitpick. Would be more of a little nubbin in such basal taxa. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals by Ezequiel Vera

I came across the following unreviewed restorations by Ezequielvera on Commons, which could be useful once reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Viavenator
• 
  Eodromaeus
• 
  Narambuenatitan
• 
  Pitekunsaurus macayai
• 
  Amargastegos
• 
  Petrobrasaurus
• 
  Discosauriscus
• 
  Kirchnerala
• 
  Madres

Standard comments on lips for Viavenator.

Eodromaeus' hands at least need a little flesh for IV and V... Teeth also feel like an afterthought.

I think Eodromaeus is pretty good, or at least better than the current NT restoration. It's entirely possible that metacarpals IV and V were covered with skin at this point in their evolution (though I won't say it's conclusive), and the teeth correspond to the anatomy quite well (large, widely-spaced, longest in the anterior maxilla). The visible fenestrae are the largest issues I see. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I can fix that one if it's useful then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I was considering that there doesn't seem to be enough space for metacarpals IV/V even if they were covered in flesh. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks to be enough to me, from what we know of the last metacarpals they were very small and slender. I would bet that the life restoration was based on Maurissauro's skeletal, which is very good. I have noticed that the head (in the art) may be a little too big, but it's hard to tell if it's outside the realm of variation since all we really have on the taxon is a short paper in Science. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree regarding the digits. As for the head, when I drew the skull I relied on information from the 2011 paper describing the taxon, but without a detailed description, it's hard to be sure of anything. I don't know if you've ever had a chance to see Eodromaeus's skull, but it's quite a mess, unfortunately. Maurissauro (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The perspective on Amargastegos is weird. Would that little of the thigh be visible from this perspective? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The Pitekunsaurus also seems to be overly emaciated, and the Narambuenatitan has a too visible fenestra. That should be fixable, though, if those are the only issues. Don't think I'll bother fixing those that already have other restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Something is very off with the head and neck of Narambuenatitan, but I can't place what exactly it is. It looks like a dicraeosaurid. Maybe the head is too large? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

All the titanosaurs have that low-shouldered, short-necked look that titanosaurs were depicted with back when people thought Saltasaurus was a typical titanosaur. They also have numerous randomly-placed small osteoderms, not the rows of only a few osteoderms considered more likely these days. The head seems to be in line with the neck, rather than slightly downturned as is typical of sauropods (this is especially egregious in the Narambuenatitan). The head of the Petrobrasaurus looks almost prosauropod-like. All in all, they have a decidedly retro look that I feel is probably generally inaccurate. The composition of the Pitekunsaurus reconstruction is also confusing; I can't tell if the size differences are meant to be perspective or not. Since these are mostly very general problems, I'm not sure if they're the kinds of things for which revising the images is appropriate. My preference would be to replace them altogether, although obviously we'd need something to replace them with... Ornithopsis (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Good points. With the effort that is required to fix up these images, we may as well create new ones... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I have excised and tagged all three titanosaur images. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I guess that leaves the three non-dinosaurs, and I guess I'll just remove the teeth from the abelisaur so it can at least be usable down the line. As for the Amargastegos, the fat belly would overlap the thigh? FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, would it be that extreme? Here's a Stegosaurus muscular reconstruction in a similar view: [12] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I made the belly protrude a bit less so we can use this image if ever it gets properly named. FunkMonk (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Kirchnerala looks ok to me, but as fossil lacks tip of the wing, I don't know the shape of wing is accurate. As seeing other stem-odonatopteran like Argentinala and Erasipteroides, wing of that reconstruction looks a bit sharper but almost acceptable. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

The Discosauriscus has a few problems. In life, the pineal foramen would have held a pineal eye, which was subtly exposed as a flat/convex structure or covered with skin instead of a pit like in the skull. I also don't know if keratinous nails would have been present as far back as seymouriamorphs, trackways seem to be a bit inconclusive on that question. Most Discosauriscus specimens are paedomorphic animals or juveniles with large external gills, but I believe terrestrial adults have also been found, so that's not a major issue. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Would it have had webbed toes? And I assume the pineal eye would have filled up the entire pit, unlike what's shown here? I can maybe enlarge the little white spot to cover it all? Could be good to save it so we have an image of an adult, there is also one by NT on Commons, not sure how accurate it is. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Just from what we know if its habits and modern amphibians, the toes were probably not webbed in terrestrial adults. And yes, the pineal eye would have filled up the entire pit. If we want an image of an adult, DB has a second version of his without external gills. The skull doesn't change too much through ontogeny besides getting a bit less triangular in dorsal view, and the rest of the body is conjectural. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've now updated the Viavenator (hid the teeth and cropped the border), the Eodromaeus (smaller head, less visible fenestrae, more apparent vestigial fingers, white background), and the Discosauriscus (larger pineal eye). Feel free to point out if they need further tweaks, or if any of the other images can be saved with edits. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  The Viavenator and Eodromaeus look great. I think a more prominent pineal eye is not the best approach for Discosauriscus: the pineal organ is usually barely visible in life even if the foramen is distinct. The tuatara, for example, has one of the most strongly developed pineal eyes, but it's barely noticeable if you compare the skull[13] to the flesh and blood head[14]. I should have clarified that even if the organ fills up the whole space within the foramen, the visible portion would have been small and difficult to distinguish from the rest of the head. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Alright, so perhaps I can just paint over it with the colour of its skin, but with low opacity, so a vague outline is apparent, or should it just be an overall lighter area without an outline? And the visible part should be smaller? FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  That sounds good. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Smaller and fainter, how is that? FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Asian dinosaurs

• 
  Achillobator
• 
  Aepyornithomimus
• 
  Albalophosaurus
• 
  Albinykus
• 
  Amtocephale
• 
  Anhuilong
• 
  Anomalipes
• 
  Anserimimus
• 
  Aralosaurus
• 
  Archaeornithoides
• 
  Arkharavia
• 
  Auroraceratops
• 
  Bactrosaurus
• 
  Banji
• 
  Batyrosaurus
• 
  Bayannurosaurus
• 
  Beibeilong
• 
  Beipiaosaurus
• 
  Beishanlong
• 
  Caenagnathasia
• 
  Ceratonykus
• 
  Chaoyangsaurus
• 
  Citipati
• 
  Dilong
• 
  Dongbeititan
• Dzharatitanis
  Dzharatitanis
• 
  Erlikosaurus
• 
  Gallimimus
• 
  Gigantoraptor
• 
  Gobihadros
• 
  Gobivenator
• 
  Graciliceratops
• 
  Graciliraptor
• 
  Haplocheirus
• 
  Hualianceratops
• 
  Irisosaurus
• 
  Isanosaurus
• 
  Ischioceratops
• 
  Itemirus
• 
  Jianchangosaurus
• 
  Jianianhualong
• 
  Khaan
• 
  Koreaceratops
• 
  Liaoceratops
• 
  Liaoningosaurus
• 
  Micropachycephalosaurus
• 
  Minotaurasaurus
• 
  Mongolostegus
• 
  Mononykus
• 
  Nanshiungosaurus
• 
  Nomingia
• 
  Oviraptor
• 
  Parvicursor
• 
  Pedopenna
• 
  Philovenator
• 
  Pinacosaurus
• 
  Protarchaeopteryx
• 
  Qiaowanlong
• 
  Qinlingosaurus
• 
  Qiupalong
• 
  Ruyangosaurus
• 
  Saichania
• 
  Saurolophus
• 
  Scansoriopteryx
• 
  Serikornis
• 
  Shanag
• 
  Siamosaurus
• 
  Sinocalliopteryx
• 
  Sinoceratops
• 
  Sinosaurus
• 
  Sirindhorna
• 
  Talarurus
• 
  Tangvayosaurus
• 
  Tianyulong
• 
  Tsaagan
• 
  Wuerhosaurus
• 
  Wulatelong
• 
  Wulong
• 
  Xiongguanlong
• 
  Xuwulong
• 
  Yi
• 
  Yimenosaurus
• 
  Zhenyuanlong
• 
  Zhongjianosaurus
• 
  Zhuchengceratops
• 
  Zhuchengtitan
• 
  Zhuchengtyrannus
• 
  Zuoyunlong

Here's the second round of images of the lists of dinosaurs by continent: the Asian dinosaurs. Apologies if it's quite long, but Asia really is the hotspot for dinosaur discoveries.

My comments:

- The Aepyornithomimus image is from its description, but it looks kinda... off. Maybe it's the weird wings?

I think the biggest issue is that it looks like it doesn't have a chest. The texture is weird but that's expected for images from this particular artist. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Albinykus, Anomalipes, Archaeornithoides, and Bactrosaurus appear to be stuck in the WIP stage, as they lack details. @Levi bernardo:, do you have any plans to go back to them?

I would say the same for Anserimimus, the right leg is a little rough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Amtocephale should have a rim of hornlets around its dome.
- My Bayannurosaurus was posted here before, where I was asked to pose it bipedally. However, because its description found it to be mostly quadrupedal, I changed it back.

What is the basis of the Iguanodon-like hands? Indeed the manus is not complete, but based on what is there and on Ouranosaurus it looks a little large. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The rest of the skeleton, especially the skull, looked so much like Iguanodon so I thought it was possible the hands were just as big as the latter's. But I made them smaller based on your suggestion. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Beibeilong is from its description, but it appears to have pronated hands.

Should be kept even if we create a modified version. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

While that's probably how it was drawn, I think it can coneivably be explained away by perspective, if we imagine the lower arm is directed away from the viewer. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- According to its description, Caenagnathasia was found with a toothed beak, so the artist restored it like a wading bird with big feet. I'm not sure the beak thing is true, so the speculative ecology looks quite unlikely.

Sues & Averianov (2015) describe some mild fluting on the occlusal edge of the beak but it's less pronounced than Caenagnathus. The legs are probably relatively easy to fix, and the mouth is closed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The left hand of the Chaoyangsaurus appears to be pronated.

Changed hands. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

- Light green is unlikely for the unfeathered parts of Dilong. It also has exposed teeth.
- I reconstructed Dongbeititan as a non-titanosauriform sauropod following Mannion et al. (2013).
- The Dzharatitanis comes from its original description that found it to be a rebbachisaurid, but it has since been reinterpreted as a titanosaur. I have no idea what to do with the image. Should we tag it as inaccurate or speculative, or make a new one?

This seems like an acceptable image to use for historical purposes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The biggest issue with the Dzharatitanis image is that I've nominated it for deletion. It's a piece by Andrey Atuchin, not Averianov, and its been published in multiple places by Atuchin as not freely-licensed. Discussions of it can continue on the nomination page, but I think its a case of Eurekamag incorrectly attributing the authority and license of a figure from the paper to the press release art of a different license and author. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Replied at nomination, but my take is that we don't know for sure unless one of us checks with Atuchin. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:54, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

- Gobihadros is also from a paper, but it has a claw on the fourth finger.

Removed the fourth fingers. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

- Graciliraptor should have longer hind wings to better match Microraptor. Also, the bottom-most leg feathers erupt diretly from scaly skin; as evidenced by Microraptor, microraptorians had feathers until their feet.

Improved the leg wings. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Improved for sure. Though could the metatarsal feathers be a bit longer? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, how much longer would you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The longest metatarsal feathers in Microraptor gui look to be roughly twice as long as the metatarsus [15] but I think maybe a 50% increase would be enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 11:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume the arm wings would have to be lengthened as well? FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

- The left Irisosaurus in the image from its description has a seemingly pronated hand.

I straightened the hand out so that it can now conceivably be explained by perspective, if we imagine the arm was lifted somewhat to the side. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Isanosaurus is a model from a Polish "dino-park". Its front limbs appear to be a failed attempt at eusauropod-like hands (unless it's just funky lighting), and it has a protofeather crest, which is unlikely for sauropodomorphs. There's also a barely-visible text watermark in the bottom right corner.
- The texture of the Itemirus looks too much like skin instead of feathers.

I don't know about that, it feels like a good attempt at emulating shoebill integument (sans the beak). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Jianianhualong is another press release/paper artwork, but the proportions of its wings are strange. (Primaries shorter than secondaries?)

I don't think this is entirely unreasonable. I kept the restoration while I was writing the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Koreaceratops lacks the "sail" on its tail.

I really do not like how it is swimming. The original description makes the same ecological inference for Protoceratops, for which the majority opinion is of a function in display (cf. work of Hone et al.). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The pose of the Liaoceratops seems to imply it was facultatively quadrupedal, but I'm pretty sure basal ceratopsians were obligate bipeds.
- The armor on the Liaoningosaurus appears to be drawn as a carapace and not as plates embedded in the skin.
- I drew the plates of the Mongolostegus based on Wuerhosaurus. I agree that the latter's plates are broken, but I just can't see them as tall pentagons or teardrops like Stegosaurus, so I came up with a compromise.
- I originally drew the Pedopenna with a kakapo-like color scheme, but I changed it to a more burrowing owl-inspired one after I realized primitive feathers probably couldn't be green. Either way, both are fitting as Pedopenna was likely mostly terrestrial.

It seems to have a way too large eye, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I checked and it matches well with the sclerotic ring of Scott Hartman's updated Anchiornis. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

But again, you need to base it on the inner diameter of the ring, not the outer, as it appears to be here, compared to Hartman's diagram. The visible part of the eyeball in the living animal would not exceed the inner diameter. FunkMonk (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Philovenator doesn't have primary feathers.
- Pinacosaurus should have claws.
- The Protarchaeopteryx looks too much like a modern turkey, down to the blue skin on its face.
- Qiaowanlong is depicted as a brachiosaurid, but most phylogenetic analyses place it within Euhelopodidae.
- I drew Qinlingosaurus as a titanosaur based on Tracy Ford's identification.
- IIRC, Qiupalong should have no feathers on the legs and in the immediate area surrounding it, based on the excellent specimen of Ornithomimus with integument impressions.

This seems close enough. One would not expect every single species in a clade to have the same integument pattern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Ruyangosaurus was drawn by Nima Sassani, who has an... unusual idea of sauropod phylogeny, so its depiction as a lithostrotian may not be accurate.

The image is from a preprint, so it unusually straddles the line between academic literature and user-generated content. I think caution is warranted. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The Saurolophus comes from a paper about its scalation, so the color pattern is likely accurate, but the pinky is missing. Same goes for its North American counterpart.
- Sinoceratops is missing the distinctive bumps lining the top of the frill.
- The Sirindhorna image comes from its description, but its temporal fenestra is quite obvious.

Painted it out and moved the eye up. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- The Tangvayosaurus is a model in Savannakhet, Laos. It's also a literal retrosaur.

Beyond saving, could be any sauropod. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- There is apparently an undescribed specimen of Tianyulong that shows it with a long tail with a "fan" of spines at the tip. Our restoration should probably be updated to reflect that.

I don't think so, as this is not in the literature yet. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- Wakinosaurus has visible fenestrae. Also, it seems to have a prominent pubic boot *wink wink*

I have a suspicion that it's a copyvio, as is usual the case at such a small resolution, but can't verify it... FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It's actually made by Ezequiel Vera, who used to go by maniraptora on DeviantArt. But I do see how it looks like it was grabbed from a 90's-early 00's dinosaur website. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, why is the Commons version then credited to a Thiago Lourenço Menezes? Seems the image may have just been taken without persmission from the author? FunkMonk (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Wuerhosaurus looks like it has only one row of plates.

This image is beyond saving, the anatomy is bizarre. I don't know what's going on with the lanky forelimbs and oversized beak. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

- The wing of the Wulatelong is odd. Where do the primaries begin and the secondaries end?
- While amazing, Emily Willoughby's Yi qi is the incorrect color. Analysis of melanosomes suggest it was mostly black but yellowish-brown on the head and wing membranes.
- Zhuchengtyrannus appears to have whiskers?

Seems like just filaments. I don't see this as being clearly wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, I updated the proportions of the drawings I made (Arkharavia, Batyrosaurus, Bayannurosaurus, Dongbeititan, Mongolostegus, Pedopenna, Qinlingosaurus, Tsaagan, Yimenosaurus, Zhuchengtitan and Zuoyunlong) before I posted them here.

Aside from that, I think all of them are okay. What do you think? Are there other errors? Should anything else be changed? Miracusaurs (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Beishanlong is probably a little less deinocheirid-like than it should be.

Minotaurasaurus has a jugal horn that looks a little small and not quite right.

Enlarged it somewhat, but I don't think we can say much about the accuracy of the shape as long as the bony core would fit within it, seems kerartin could change it dramatically. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Mononykus is missing vestigial manual digits, not covered by a plausible amount of skin or feathers either.

I think it's worth tagging the artists when we know they're active, so tagging PaleoNeolitic. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Now added 🤏. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Parvicursor seems like a nice image for palaeoecology but it obscures a lot of anatomy - in fact, pretty much all of the parts that are known...

Saichania has extra claws.

Removed fourth claws and green tint. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Scansoriopteryx works fine as a historical restoration (same with Epidendrosaurus) but I think there should be a reconstruction more like Yi.

Sinocalliopteryx, head seems a little small.

Made the head bigger and the neck shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Zhuchengceratops doesn't look like a leptoceratopsid, it looks like a derived ceratopsid.

Zuoyunlong has an innovative colour scheme, but it also obscures some detail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Alright, sauropod thoughts:

• The Anhuilong looks somewhat shrinkwrapped, but otherwise reasonable at a glance.
• Arkharavia is too incomplete and of too poorly-known phylogenetic position to meaningfully reconstruct.
• The holotype of Dongbeititan preserves sixteen cervical vertebrae, and is missing some, so it probably had Euhelopus-like proportions. Moore et al. recovered it as closely related to Euhelopus. Basing it off of Euhelopus seems like our best bet to me.
• The Dzharatitanis reconstruction should be marked as historical. I would discourage creating an alternate reconstruction of Dzharatitanis at the moment, given the ambiguity of its phylogenetic position.
• Based on Tazoudasaurus, vulcanodont-grade sauropods did have somewhat eusauropod-like manus, although I'm not really sure what's going on with the manus in this image, and we can't really rule out tufts of feathers in something like this. I would hesitate to mark this Isanosaurus as inaccurate, and as it's a photo of a model we probably shouldn't alter it, but it's perhaps not ideal if we had an alternative.
• The Qiaowanlong reconstruction should be marked as historical.
• Qinlingosaurus is probably too enigmatic to meaningfully reconstruct.
• That Ruyangosaurus is based on the artist's hypothesis that Ruyangosaurus is a lognkosaur, which is not supported by any peer-reviewed literature. Ruyangosaurus is probably euhelopodid-grade, and so is unlikely to have had osteoderms. Note that the preprint the image comes from recieved fairly substantial criticism, including the fact that the authors overlooked an extensive description of referred material of the taxon (COI disclosure: I was one of the people who made critical comments). Not quite sure what it should be marked as, but it arguably not accurate and not really historical either, and I don't think we should try to alter it.
• The Tangvayosaurus looks like a pretty generic retro roadside dinosaur to me.
• I don't feel Zhuchengtitan should have osteoderms, as Opisthocoelicaudia doesn't seem to.

Ornithopsis (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Dongbeititan updated. As for Zhuchengtitan, I gave it osteoderms based on Alamosaurus, which has been recovered as close to Opisthocoelicaudia. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The Dongbeititan looks better now. Seeing as Zhuchengtitan is likely to be closely related to Opisthocoelicaudia in particular, and it's controversial just how closely related Opisthocoelicaudia and Alamosaurus are, I think it's best to specifically base it off of Opisthocoelicaudia, rather than adding in features from Alamosaurus. IIRC, no titanosaur osteoderms have yet been recovered from Asia. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Zhuchengtitan updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

European dinosaurs

• 
  Acanthopholis
• 
  Ajkaceratops
• 
  Anoplosaurus
• 
  Aragosaurus
• 
  Arcovenator
• 
  Arenysaurus
• 
  Atsinganosaurus
• 
  Bradycneme
• 
  Camelotia
• 
  Cetiosaurus
• 
  Cumnoria
• 
  Dacentrurus
• 
  Demandasaurus
• 
  Draconyx
• 
  Dracoraptor
• 
  Dubreuillosaurus
• 
  Duriavenator
• 
  Erectopus
• 
  Europasaurus
• 
  Eustreptospondylus
• 
  Haestasaurus
• 
  Heptasteornis
• 
  Horshamosaurus
• 
  Hungarosaurus
• 
  Hypselospinus
• 
  Juratyrant
• 
  Liliensternus
• 
  Lohuecotitan
• 
  Lusitanosaurus
• 
  Magyarosaurus
• 
  Marmarospondylus
• 
  Miragaia
• 
  Ohmdenosaurus
• 
  Paludititan
• 
  Pareisactus
• 
  Piveteausaurus
• 
  Proceratosaurus
• 
  Riabininohadros
• 
  Sciurumimus
• 
  Tastavinsaurus
• 
  Torvosaurus gurneyi
• 
  Wiehenvenator

Not April Fool's: this third round of "list of dinosaurs by continent" images needs reviewing. Presenting, the European dinosaurs.

My comments:

- Anoplosaurus is just one of the many WIP's abandoned by Levi bernardo. Ironically, true to its name, it has no armor.
- Is it just me, or are the jaws of the Arcovenator too thin?

Compared to Majungasaurus... I think the image is fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Arenysaurus is a model, but it has no crest as expected for a lambeosaurine.

A dedicated restoration is probably needed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Atsinganosaurus appears too robust for a lirainosaurine, but it could be reworked into an opisthocoelicaudiine as indicated by Gorcsak's titanosaur analyses. The lighting should also be cleaned up.
- I drew Bradycneme and Heptasteornis as alvarezsaurids based on Thomas Holtz's book, the latter reinforced by Hartman et al., 2019.
- Camelotia has pronated hands.
- I've heard that Cetiosaurus has more than one claw on its hands, but I'm not sure if it's true.
- Dacentrurus is just... weird.

I took the liberty of removing this image from the page. Yikes... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Draconyx was updated based on a comment left when the image was removed from its page. HFoxii, just a note: artistic quality shouldn't be a major reason to delete an image. This is not an art competition.
- Erectopus is an interesting case. It's the official coat of arms of Louppy le Chateau, France, but the dinosaur on the shield is clearly traced from the image from the now defunct Jurassic Park Institute website, most likely because it's the first result on Google Images. What do we do about this?

I mean... I don't think this can be considered a restoration or copyvio proper. Best to leave it IMO. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

- Europasaurus comes from a popular image that's often been used to illustrate the Mesozoic. While the sauropod is passable (except for a few extra claws on the forelimbs), the blue dinosaurs in the background are more concerning. According to the description, they're Iguanodon, which did not live with Europasaurus. They also look like silesaurids.

We could just relabel them as generic iguanodonts or something? I can remove the extra claws, but I think those iguanodonts could be left as just unidentified, surely something of the sort would have lived there. FunkMonk (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

- Haestasaurus has sometimes been recovered as a turiasaur, so the Camarasaurus-like proportions may not be totally accurate.
- Hungarosaurus is a model in, well, Hungary.

For such a unique taxon, a better image is definitely needed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Liliensternus seems to have paired crests, although contrary to popular belief, there is no evidence of such a feature.

What popular belief? It's not restored like that due to any kind of evidence, just possible phylogenetic position. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

- Lohuecotitan is a model in Cuenca, Spain. It's also one of the most accurate sauropod models I've ever seen.
- Magyarosaurus comes from a Romanian stamp credited to "R. Popescu", but it's plaigiarized from Dougal Dixon's World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures.
- Piveteausaurus has visible fenestrae.

Lips too, and perhaps skull shape. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

- Riabininohadros is depicted as a hadrosaurid, but its formal description finds it to be indeterminate within Styracosterna.
- The arms of Torvosaurus gurneyi are too small and too thin.

Additionally, I also updated Bradycneme, Draconyx, Heptasteornis, Horshamosaurus, Lusitanosaurus, Marmarospondylus, and Pareisactus before posting this here.

Bradycneme - what is its status? I realize Holtz referred it to the Alvarezsauridae but I feel like it may not be clear enough to definitively restore it as a member of a specialized clade. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

What are your thoughts? Should anything else be changed? Miracusaurs (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As per usual, my sauropod thoughts:

• Aragosaurus: It should probably have somewhat more raised shoulders, as Aragosaurus had a proportionally longer forelimb than Camarasaurus.
• Atsinganosaurus: This doesn't look particularly robust to me, so I don't really see much of a problem with it.
• Camelotia: One of the reasons this is tagged as inaccurate is that it depicts Camelotia as a quadruped, but based on its relatives such as Melanorosaurus and Antetonitrus, Camelotia was indeed probably a quadruped. The manus are indeed inaccurate, however.
• Cetiosaurus: Why would Cetiosaurus have more than one manual ungual? Even stuff as basal as Tazoudasaurus seems to have only the one, and manual material isn't known for Cetiosaurus. The strongly anteriorly tapering torso and ramrod-straight horizontal neck strike me as questionable, but I'm not sure if it's strictly inaccurate.
• Demandasaurus: Looks fine.
• Europasaurus: In addition to the claws and biogeography, the head seems oddly-shaped.
• Haestasaurus: We don't really know exactly where this falls phylogenetically exactly, so I'm not sure we can say Camarasaurus-like proportions are inaccurate. This isn't too unlike Moabosaurus proportionally, so I don't think there's really a problem.
• Lohuecotitan: Looks fine.
• Magyarosaurus: This image portrays the stamp, not the animal per se, and so is not really within the scope of what we do here.
• Marmarospondylus: This is yet another taxon that is too incomplete and of inadequately-constrained phylogenetic relationships to meaningfully reconstruct.
• Ohmdenosaurus: Looks fine.
• Paludititan: Probably too osteoderm-heavy; the general view is that titanosaurs probably had only one pair of osteoderm rows, and certainly not an extensive cover like non-stegosaur thyreophorans.
• Tastavinsaurus: The reconstruction isn't particularly good, but it's hard to say whether it's particularly inaccurate, strictly speaking.

So that's what I've got. Ornithopsis (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've nominated Magyarosaurus for deletion. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional thoughts:

• Acanthopholis suffers from the grievous mistake of too many claws. But perhaps more egregious is the taxobox image: what is this???
• Ajkaceratops, like Zhuchengceratops, suffers from NT's historical tendency to make basal ceratopsian heads way too small.

If I want to fix this, what should I use as reference? FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems unclear. If it is a bagaceratopsid (e.g. per [16]), it should look like [17]. On the other hand [18] finds it closer to Ceratopsidae, in which case it would look like [19]. Perhaps stick with the former just to illustrate a single hypothesis? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Shrank the body, gave it more of a jawline, and some did other weird anatomy fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe more of a dip between the nasal horn and frill? Looks good otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I might return to it later on, there are also other things like odd limb proportions that could get a further tweak... FunkMonk (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Cumnoria has been sunk into Camptosaurus, so maybe it should look something more like C. dispar? Bigger head, for one, and shorter legs. Looks like a generic 90s iguanodont right now.
• Eustreptospondylus' tall skull doesn't feel very megalosaurid-like, especially juxtaposed against IJ's skull reconstruction on the page.

Made skull longer. Not sure we can really say it was wrong before, though. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Hypselospinus mostly looks fine save for the bent tail, is that possible?
• Miragaia is clearly wrong. Specimen MG 4863 shows spines on the anterior tail [20], not plates as shown here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Suchomimus Restoration Illustration

Hello, it's been roughly a year I believe since I first sumbitted my Sucho sketch to the review page and Im here with a finalized piece. I've got the updated image here to see if there's anything that needs correcting. --Fred Wierum 21:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me, there is a recent trend of restoring spinosaurs with lips covering much of the teeth, which we of course don't have to always follow, but looks a bit like the one in the background has the teeth more covered, or perhaps that's just the angle? FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe that's the angle or just me forgetting about the teeth. I can add more white in that area to make the teeth more visible. Fred Wierum 21:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Not a big deal in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe the new paper on Spinosaurus’ bone density made a small change to the appearance of the sacral vertebrae in both Suchomimus and Baryonyx, giving them a “dip” of sorts. I don’t see that represented in this image, so it might be a good thing to include that? I have no further notes on it, the art is magnificent! TimTheDragonRider (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you're referring to this chart here, [21] The dip is present in Baryonyx, but there isnt any material it seems to claim a dip in Suchomimus other than its association with Baryonyx? I also dont see the dip in other past skeletals so I opted for not adding it in. Fred Wierum 15:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the red part is supposed to be the known material in that chart, which would seem there is material indicating such a dip in Suchomimus? Doesn't seem to be present in older diagrams[22], but perhaps it's based on different material? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression the orange bits were missing material given the Spinosaurus had the legs orange too. If I remember correctly, we dont have the legs for Spino. Fred Wierum 21:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: From the caption of the figure in question: "Skeletal reconstructions are based on single individuals (holotype of Baryonyx and neotype of Spinosaurus), exception made for Suchomimus (see Supplementary Information for further details); preserved bones are highlighted in orange."
The Supplementary Information further explains, "The skeletal reconstruction of Spinosaurus is based on the neotypic and holotypic skeletons, whereas that of Baryonyx is based only on the holotype. The reconstruction of Suchomimus is based on three previously published individuals (G51, G94, and G70). As in Baryonyx, the caudal series of Suchomimus is highly fragmentary; therefore, the reconstruction of this region is speculative and inspired by Ibrahim et al. and Barker et al."
Hope this helps clear things up. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

So, dip or no dip? Fred Wierum 18:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think Wiki's current skeletal diagram and the diagram in the new Spino paper are based on the same material, just arranged/interpreted slightly differently. I would personally go with the dip, since that's the most recent research, but I don't think it really matters. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps PaleoGeekSquared, who wrote most of our spinosaur FAs, has some input. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Nice to see an update on this piece. It looks absolutely stunning! As for the sail dip in the new skeletal, I've been very curious about this myself so I'm going to ask one of the authors about it now. The fact there hasn't been any notch/dip depicted in previous skeletals makes me wonder how solid the reasoning is behind it, besides the presence of one in Ichthyovenator, or if it's pure speculation. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the skeletals from that paper also reconstruct baryonychines with deep tails, possibly based on the paddle of Spinosaurus. So there's another question: Deep or shallow tail? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone got any suggestions? I'm okay with either. Fred Wierum 14:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Anyone got any comments on the Sucho hip dip and tail? I'd like to get this part of the illustration decided soon before this section gets lost behind all the newer reviews. Fred Wierum 14:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I think it's ok for now, but would it be possible to modify it if there comes more definite evidence for this in the future? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Most definitely. I dont check Wiki often at all for notifications, but if you can reach out to me on Twitter, DeviantArt, Artstation, or Discord, please do. Im more than okay with updating completed illustrations. Fred Wierum 18:09, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if your Carnotaurus needs an update in light of this[23] paper, Fred Wierum? FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I thought about revisiting the Carnotaurus, if not just completely redoing it. Fred Wierum 18:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• The latest Sereno paper[24] does not show the dip in the sail for Suchomimus, or even Spinosaurus, Fred Wierum, and PaleoGeekSquared. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

So what's the verdict? Is it ready for upload or tweaks still need to be made? This piece has been sittin' here for quite a while now. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine, doesn't seem we have any conclusive evidence either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine too, at least for now. No spinosaurid seems safe these days... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Unless anyone thinks there needs to be any changes, I think its ready for the page then. Fred Wierum (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

No one's had any requests for edits needed so I added it to the Sucho page in the Evolution section. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs

• 
  Archaeodontosaurus
• 
  Pradhania

Not really much from this fourth round of dinosaurs: the Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs.

- Ornithomimoides is the exact image from the Jurassic Park Institute.
- Pradhania was updated by me before I posted it here.

Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Second one certainly needs to be nominated for deletion on Commons. The eye of the third one seems many times too big, should be more like:[25] FunkMonk (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ornithomimoides nominated for deletion. Also, the proportions of Pradhania's skull match almost exactly to Scott Hartman's Massospondylus. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the visible part of the eyeball should only correspond to the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring, like in the Massospondylus I linked, which also seems based on the same skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Weird. I checked earlier and I was sure the eye size matched the sclerotic ring. But I still made it smaller. Miracusaurs (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Only that there are many more Indian and Madagascan dinosaur images, or are these only the ones that might need improvement? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

These are just the images from List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs that haven't appeared on the image review page yet. Feel free to check that page for any other images you think have to be improved. Miracusaurs (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Alwalkeria
• 
  Lamplughsaura
• Masiakasaurus
  Masiakasaurus
• 
  Rapetosaurus

• Alwalkeria could be given lips.
• Lamplughsaura has pronated forelimbs?
• Masiakasaurus needs to be tweaked to be more like other noasaurids: [26]

But we don't really have complete skulls of very close relatives? So how can we say it is wrong? Limusaurus isn't exactly similar. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Rapetosaurus still seems quite wonky. The taxon has osteoderms, does it not? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Rapetosaurus does indeed have osteoderms; although apparently it seems that juveniles did not have them ([27]). Even taking foreshortening into account though, the neck seems too short, too shallow, and undermuscled at its base. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it does have something similar to osteoderms spread around? FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Could still use a touch-up IMO, especially to make it more like the standard two-row osteoderm arrangement. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

North American dinosaurs

• 
  Abydosaurus
• 
  Albertadromeus
• 
  Albertavenator
• 
  Albertonykus
• 
  Alcovasaurus
• 
  Anasazisaurus
• 
  Angulomastacator
• 
  Ankylosaurus
• 
  Anodontosaurus
• 
  Apatoraptor
• 
  Aquilarhinus
• 
  Aquilops
• 
  Arrhinoceratops
• 
  Astrophocaudia
• 
  Bambiraptor
• 
  Bistahieversor
• 
  Brachylophosaurus
• 
  Bravoceratops
• 
  Brontomerus
• 
  Camposaurus
• 
  Chasmosaurus
• 
  Claosaurus
• 
  Coahuilaceratops
• 
  Coelophysis
• 
  Coronosaurus
• 
  Crittendenceratops
• 
  Diabloceratops
• 
  Dineobellator
• 
  Dromiceiomimus
• 
  Einiosaurus
• 
  Eotrachodon
• 
  Eotriceratops
• 
  Falcarius
• 
  Fosterovenator
• 
  Geminiraptor
• 
  Gojirasaurus
• 
  Hanssuesia
• 
  Hesperonychus
• 
  Hesperosaurus
• 
  Judiceratops
• 
  Koparion
• 
  Labocania
• 
  Leptoceratops
• 
  Leptorhynchos
• 
  Machairoceratops
• 
  Martharaptor
• 
  Mercuriceratops
• 
  Monoclonius
• 
  Nasutoceratops
• 
  Nothronychus
• 
  Ojoraptorsaurus
• 
  Ornitholestes
• 
  Orodromeus
• 
  Pachyrhinosaurus
• 
  Parksosaurus
• 
  Pentaceratops
• 
  Prenoceratops
• 
  Probrachylophosaurus
• 
  Prosaurolophus
• 
  Rugocaudia
• 
  Sauroposeidon
• 
  Saurornitholestes
• 
  Seitaad
• 
  Siats
• 
  Spiclypeus
• 
  Spinops
• 
  Stellasaurus?
• 
  Styracosaurus
• 
  Talos
• 
  Tanycolagreus
• 
  Tawa
• 
  Thescelosaurus
• 
  Troodon
• 
  Utahceratops
• 
  Vagaceratops
• 
  Xenoceratops
• 
  Zuniceratops

I was supposed to post this yesterday but I felt sleepy. So here it is. The fifth round of dinosaurs: the North American ones.

- Alcovasaurus is reconstructed like Stegosaurus, but it may have looked more like Miragaia.
- Anasazisaurus is drawn with a short, Brachylophosaurus-like crest, but as a close relative of Kritosaurus (possibly even a second species of the latter), it should have a bigger crest.

That's literally how the skull is reconstructed in the literature, though? Plus at least part of the nasals and premaxillae are preserved. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- No comments about the anatomy of the Anodontosaurus, but the line on the right side should be cropped out.

Compared to the holotype, the head armour looks a bit off (D in [28]): asca is too small, nascas are too small and too numerous, loca is too small. Also, the pointedness of the tail club is not obvious, but I don't know how one would fix that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- There's something off about the wings and tail of Bambiraptor, but I can't put my finger on it.

I think it's a texturing issue. But based on Hartman's 2022 skeletal of Bambiraptor, the arms look a little too big [29]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- Brachylophosaurus doesn't have the crest sticking out just behind the eyes.

It has a really short tail, it should be at least 50% longer [30]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- The skull of Camposaurus is weird. Also, could it even curl its tail like that?
- Dromiceiomimus needs wings, especially if it is synonymous with Ornithomimus edmontonicus, to which a feathered specimen has been assigned.
- Eotrachodon has five fingers, including claws on the thumb and pinky.

The skull is not tall enough [31]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- Fosterovenator has weird proportions. Given that its description is contradictory as to its phylogenetic position, it's uncertain which ones are correct.
- Hesperonychus looks like a eudromaeosaur, even though it is pretty much agreed to be a microraptorian.
- We're not really sure if Labocania is a tyrannosauroid (or even a tyrannosaurid as it seems to be depicted as). It's also shrinkwrapped.
- Leptorhynchos lacks primary feathers.
- Martharaptor is just... weird.

I don't think the left hand is pronated. It looks like an attempt at primaries. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- Monoclonius is depicted as eating a modern-type flower, but I'm not sure if they existed in Campanian North America.
- The wings of Ojoraptorsaurus are rendered weirdly, and its coloration is exactly like a modern cassowary's, down to the blue neck.
- I'm not sure blue-green would be possible for the scales of Parksosaurus.
- Probrachylophosaurus is depicted with feathers, but multiple "mummies" show that hadrosaurs were exclusively scaly.

I'm more concerned about the fact that the skull appears longer than the paper's reconstruction, and also that of Brachylophosaurus (scaled roughly to the same size). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- Rugocaudia was updated by me before I posted it here.
- I doubt that Spicylepus, and other ceratopsids, had such spiky backs.

I don't think we can really rule out anything for such a large group, even if we have preserved skin in a few genera. Related modern anaimals can have vastly different integument. FunkMonk (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

- The Stellasaurus illustration first appeared in a paper about Rubeosaurus (or Styracosaurus ovatus), and combines the nasal horn of Stellasaurus and the frill spikes of Rubeosaurus. So which genus should this image represent?

This should be kept as a historical image, and new reconstructions should be made. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this is pretty much a chimaera (if we follow the latest interpretstion), and mainly suited for illustrating a historical concept. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

- The Thescelosaurus image comes from a paper, but according to David Attenborough's recent documentary, Thescelosaurus was most likely scaly.

Preliminary comment before I look at the others... I really don't think a documentary's claims, based on a partial specimen, are admissible evidence... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a bit off that they would use a scaly leg to infer that the entire animal was scaly. Errr, modern birds? FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I made this illustration long before the discovery was made. I know there's a lot of errors with my illustration such as the head shape.

Should I make a new one? LWPaleoart (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I always thought the legs of that Troodon made it look very unbalanced, like it would tip backwards. FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I can try make a new Troodon illustration for the page. I can start after the Amargasaurus and Suchomimus pieces are finalized. Fred Wierum 20:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Sounds cool, could perhaps be based on the Two Medicine Formation Troodon specimens that are also sometimes assigned to Stenonychosaurus, in case that some day is described as a new genus, then we'll have a restoration of it... FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Re Parksosaurus blue-green scales, unless my knowledge is outdated(?), it's only simple monofilaments like hair that cannot create blue or green due to them being structural colours. There are reptiles alive today that have blue and green scales.Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

That's my impression too, unless we have scales that somehow have an indication of pigmentation, as the supposed red of Borealopelta, then I don't see how we could exclude the possibility. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Whilst on the subject of colour, online there are images of a brightly coloured Indian Giant Squirrel with fur that looks like it's getting into the blues... Be interested to know what's going on there.Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Abydosaurus - Nostril position and snout shape are unconvincing.

Albertonykus is quite rough. The skull doesn't look anything like other alvarezsaurids, the torso is way too shallow, and there's some kind of weird cropping error on the tail feathers.

Angulomastacator could be a parasaurolophin, so perhaps a deeper skull and crest more similar to Parasaurolophus is warranted? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued.

Arrhinoceratops doesn't match the skull ROM 1439 [32]. The frill is way too tall, as the squamosal should connect at the level of the orbit; I don't know what's going on with the lone episquamosal either. The epossifications are nowhere nearly as spiky. The postorbital horns should be curved. The nasal horn should be curved. The lower jaw should be taller.

Bistahieversor looks like it has dislocated arms and no premaxillary teeth? May have visible fenestrae as well.

Brontomerus has always bothered me a little. I think it's the nostril position, large scales, and tail pose (could it even do that?)

Chasmosaurus should have a slightly more pointed P3, and I'm pretty sure the postorbital horns should be recurved too [33].

Coahuilaceratops looks hunchbacked, is it foreshortening? Also the squamosal and jugal again don't match up to the paper's lateral view reconstruction [34] but given that it's happened twice now I'm starting to think that I'm missing something about ceratopsian anatomy.

Coronosaurus has extra claws... I think?

I think it's just the scale lines on the fourth and fifth fingers that make it look like that. The "claws" appear to be the skin colour? FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure. Could be kept as-is then. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Diabloceratops seems to have asymmetrical postorbital horns but that may just be an artistic issue.

Einiosaurus has a jugal that's a little too pointed and is missing large facial scales. I also find the elevated tail implausible.

Eotriceratops has the tall frill and elevated tail issues again. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Continued.

Leptoceratops has tiny-head NT basal ceratopsian syndrome again [35].

Mercuriceratops has a weird hole in the squamosal — I'm pretty sure the squamosal fenestra is not supposed to be visible?

Nothronychus is reconstructed differently by the description, the redescription, and Hartman. PaleoNeolitic do you recall your process on this one? Could you expand the image description with some references?

I do, for N. mckinleyi I used Hartman's old skeletal (tail shrinked a little bit) and for N. graffami used the new one. I'm not saying the redescription skeletal is bad or something but some proportions are quite off, especially around the vertebrae. Also, the skeletal used in the original description is similar to Hartman's old and new skeletals, which seem to have fairly more acceptable proportions. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pachyrhinosaurus has feet that are too elephantine for my taste.

Pentaceratops has some intra-generic variation [36] but the epoccipitals could be tweaked to fit a specific specimen. Right now, it doesn't seem to.

Saurornitholestes could have less of an antorbital fenestra.

Seitaad's pedal digit II is a little too long and should have a bigger ungual.

Styracosaurus also doesn't match any existing specimen particularly well, I think UALVP 55900 is the only specimen with four relatively large epiparietals [37] but it doesn't look like that. The tail length is a bit awkward too.

Tanycolagreus has the feathers extending right down to the hand claws. How plausible is that?

Tawa here has four digits as opposed to three in the skeletal of Maurissauro. I don't know which one is more likely.

Utahceratops should have a bigger S1: [38] It's also missing the inward curl of P1.

Vagaceratops is missing an epiparietal at the top corner of the frill: [39]

Xenoceratops could use longer postorbital horns like Diabloceratops. The episquamosals don't match Hartman's reconstruction [40] but I'm not sure we know what's going on in that region anyway. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

My Tawa's skeleton actually has four digits. It's just that digit IV is super tiny, as you can see here, which I used as reference. Maurissauro (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Chorrillo Formation Dinosaurs

• 
  Isasicursor
• 
• 
  New version without human
• 
  Nullotitan
• 
• 
  New version without human
• 
  Maip
• 
• 
  Chorrillo Formation

With the recent description of Maip, I thought it would be appropriate to make size comparison diagrams for the named dinosaurs of the Chorrillo Formation. All three pages (Isasicursor, Nullotitan, and Maip) are low on images, so perhaps a new version of the skeletal diagrams could be made without the human scale for use on the page. This way there could be separate skeletals/size diagrams.

• For Isasicursor I depicted multiple specimens since there are fossil remains belonging to a range of individuals and ages. If it is preferred to only have a single specimen, I can remove the smaller ones. The largest specimen matches the paper's skeletal quite well. As a side note, the skeletal diagram seems to have inaccurate hands.

  I don't know how I feel about those additional specimens. I skimmed the paper and couldn't find size estimates or additional scaled skeletal diagrams asides from the one above. It's getting a little into OR territory. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

  Woah...somehow I didn't see your comment until today. I removed the smaller specimens. Is this better? -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Nullotitan has a somewhat unusual humerus : tibia/fibula length ratio, so if the proportions of the limbs look off, that's probably why. The describing authors give a vague length estimate that the holotype "almost probably surpassed 20 meters long". I primarily used Patagotitan to fill in the missing parts.
• A somewhat unrelated comment for Maip (and Megaraptora): The Megaraptora taxonomy template nests Megaraptora under Orionides. Basically all recent studies have agreed that the clade is a member of Coelurosauria, and the new Maip paper reinforces this. Is it time for the taxonomy template be updated?

Thoughts or comments? - SlvrHwk (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Avetheropoda indet. even if we're still being cautious? I don't think anyone takes the idea of them being megalosauroids very seriously these days. My impression of the megaraptoran phylogeny situation is essentially that one dataset finds them to be carnosaurs and the other dataset finds them to be coelurosaurs, and which of the two clades they're recovered in is largely a product of which analysis is used, rather than new data persuasively resolving the issue. Has there actually been any progress? Or is it just that recent papers have used the dataset that finds them to be coelurosaurs more often than the dataset that finds them to be carnosaurs? Ornithopsis (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Maip paper used one dataset and the disagreement still exists in other work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

• I dislike how the official Maip skeletal has white contours overlapping the silhouette, which makes it hard to tell them apart from the bones... I thought first some huge hyoid was preserved... FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
• New versions of the Isasicursor and Nullotitan skeletals made without humans. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Somehow I'd missed this until now, but the Isasicursor skeletal has pronated hands; I assume that would be problematic? If so, it should probably be fixed. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 20:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I updated the hands on both Isasicursor skeletals. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Maip head restoration

Cool artwork by Miner97, but maybe not particularly useful for Maip, since it is not known from any cranial material. Maybe it could be made into a different megaraptorid that does have cranial material, like Murusraptor? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

South American dinosaurs

• 
  Adamantisaurus
• 
  Adeopapposaurus
• 
  Aerosteon
• 
  Alnashetri
• 
  Alvarezsaurus
• 
  Amygdalodon
• 
  Anabisetia
• 
  Andesaurus
• 
  Aniksosaurus
• 
  Atacamatitan
• 
  Austrocheirus
• 
  Austroposeidon
• 
  Bicentenaria
• 
  Bonapartenykus
• 
  Brachytrachelopan
• 
  Buitreraptor
• 
  Dreadnoughtus
• 
  Drusilasaura
• 
  Erythrovenator
• 
  Gondwanatitan
• 
  Huinculsaurus
• 
  Ilokelesia
• 
  Leonerasaurus
• 
  Ligabuesaurus
• 
  Maxakalisaurus
• 
  Mirischia
• 
  Murusraptor
• 
  Notocolossus
• 
  Pamparaptor
• 
  Panphagia
• 
  Patagonykus
• 
  Quetecsaurus
• 
  Riojasaurus
• 
  Saturnalia
• 
  Spectrovenator
• 
  Talenkauen
• 
  Unenlagia
• 
  Yamanasaurus
• 
  Zapalasaurus
• 
  Zupaysaurus

Here's the sixth round of dinosaurs: the South American ones.

- Adeopapposaurus doesn't have the keratinous beak it's hypothesized to have.

I think it's impossible to see at this small resolution anyway, so I don't think we can say it isn't there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

- Aerosteon is depicted as a generic allosauroid rather than a megaraptoran.

Fixed head. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm hoping to create brand new reconstructions for Aerosteon and Murusraptor at some point, as I feel both of these reconstructions are still lacking in proper Megaraptoran anatomy (that we know of so far). The edits are certainly better but I'm very interested in creating new illustrations for these taxa. If that's allowed of course, and when I get the time, ha ha. LWPaleoart (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

- Alnashetri appears to be a cropped version of the Albinykus by the same artist, so my comments for the latter apply here as well.
- Regardless of its phylogenetic position, the big blocky head of Aniksosaurus just seems off to me. It also has no feathers, possibly because it is stuck in the WIP stage.
- Austroposeidon has a small hand claw, but iirc lognkosaur-grade titanosaurs had no hand claw. The lighting needs to be cleaned up.

It might be a good idea to fix this one up considering a certain documentary... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

- Although its color was already dampened by FunkMonk, Buitreraptor still looks a little too flashy.

Now completely desaturated. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

- Erythrovenator looks way too fluffy for a basal theropod.
- The skull of Gondwanatitan looks too much like a diplodocid's.
- No objections about the anatomy of the Huinculsaurus, but its tail appears to be incompletely drawn.
- Ilokelesia has many feathers, but Carnotaurus shows that abelisaurids are mostly scaly.
- Murusraptor lacks an elongated thumb claw.

Gave it longer claws. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

- Pamparaptor is bright blue, which is unlikely for primitive feathers. It also doesn't have primaries.
- What's up with the posture of that Panphagia?

Clearly copied from the paper: [41] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

- If you look closely, Quetecsaurus has a row of filaments, which are unlikely for large sauropods.
- The legs of Saturnalia appear to be directed impossibly forward.
- Talenkauen is extemely shrinkwrapped. I can see its ribs!
- Unenlagia needs primaries. Its feathers might also use some lengthening.

Additionally, Bonapartenykus, Drusilasaura, Ligabuesaurus, and Zapalasaurus were updated by me before I posted this here.

Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I will probably hide the teeth of the Zupaysaurus at some point, though it's not a direct inaccuracy. The Aerosteon should probably have a more megaraptoran skull, might try it. Isn't the Buitreraptor just grey now? FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Buiteraptor looks faded pink to me, and there's still some flamingo pink that wasn't painted over. Maybe make the whole thing light gray, like a heron? Miracusaurs (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I desaturated all the pink now, I think. I have a colourblindness that makes pink pretty hard to see... FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I also gave the Aerosteon a more megaraptoran head and claws. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Added lips to Zupaysaurus along with other fixes. FunkMonk (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The patches of spines along the neck, back and tail of Drusilasaura look a little off. Maybe have one continuous row? Or just the first section of spines on neck? Ligabuesaurus seems to have a very thin neck and chest. The head also looks very short. Figure 4B from Bellardini et al. (2022). would be a good reference. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Ligabuesaurus updated. Also, the spines of Drusilasaura were deliberately done like that as a tribute to cisiopurple's old Duriatitan. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that quite hit the mark. I think the chest should be deeper overall. But I think Ornithopsis is the best person to weigh in on what is still off (with this and the other sauropods here). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated again. Is it better now? Miracusaurs (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I meant around the pectoral girdle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:47, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Updated. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hadrosaur fixes

I'm currently looking to fix some hadrosaur restorations that had been marked as inaccurate, so posting them together here to keep it at one place. Feel free to add other hadrosaurs that seem like they could be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Nipponosaurus

This restoration[42] was already fixed once, but still looks a bit wonky, so was tagged again, and I've now tried to address the issues with this edit:[43] Bigger beak, shorter body and tail, as well as other fixes. Any thoughts? Pinging LittleLazyLass, who has worked on the article, and IJReid who I believe tagged one of these. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the image, but still feel free to point out further issues. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Maiasaura

This restoration[44] was tagged as inaccurate, but the description is pretty vague, so might need a more detailed description of what needs to be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the comments here would be the digitigrade(?) feet and the shoulder position. The latter is something thats reflected in the hadrosaur updates Hartman did to his skeletals, I don't know the original source but it may be on his blog for why. As for the feet, they are shapeless right now, and don't show any of the three-splayed-toed morphology, with the heels too high off the ground. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I painted away the too obvious shoulder blade and some other weird features, and made the feet less lumpy, is it ok, IJReid? FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it still needs for the back to be elevated over the shoulders more. One of the changes Hartman realized was the scapulae articulated lower on the body than before, making the backs more horizontal. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Paralitherizinosaurus

• 
  Paralitherizinosaurus
• 
  Desaturated version
• 
  New

I know illustrations from scientific literature are generally not reviewed, but I thought this case might warrant an exception. The bright blue, purple, and pink integument on Paralitherizinosaurus from Kobayashi et al. (2022) seems highly unrealistic and unlikely. The neck also seems a bit short, compared with the paper's skeletal diagram and related taxa. Perhaps PaleoNeolitic would be interested in making a more realistic restoration? - SlvrHwk (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The colours are a head-scratcher indeed. It is a shortcoming in many of Hattori's CG artworks. As for the neck, though, therizinosaurids seem bereft of good neck material other than Nanshiungosaurus, Neimongosaurus, and Nothronychus, which are all distant enough that I think some variation seems acceptable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:54, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think we could make a separate version with those colours sucked out. Perhaps desaturation to grey/white would be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I tried it out, it can be done with "replace colour" in Photoshop, problem is some of the background uses the same colours, so it's a bit more complicated. Maybe someoene else wants to give it a try. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I ended up with the one I added below, doesn't look too bad I think. But I wonder, where is the high res version on Commons from, the one in the paper is much smaller? FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Hattori's website. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, unless it's also CC licenced there, I think that's a bit iffy... May have to shrink this one down to the size of the one in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah not a big fan of this reconstruction in both personal and objective terms. I can certainly try making a new one. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Time has paid off and a brand-new Paralitherizinosaurus is here. The claws make it look pretty much like a miniature Therizinosaurus 🤨. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Cool! If I have time, I might make a size diagram in case the page is ever expanded. SlvrHwk (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Paralitherizinosaurus size diagram

Here's a size comparison diagram for Paralitherizinosaurus. Any comments would be appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Although I'd personally add a little more of meat to the metatarsal regions, I think it looks very eggcellent. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Australian dinosaurs

• 
  Atlascopcosaurus
• 
  Austrosaurus
• 
  Diluvicursor
• 
  Kunbarrasaurus
• 
  Muttaburrasaurus

Not much for the seventh and final round of dinosaurs: the Australian ones.

- Atlascopcosaurus is a model, but it has pronated hands.
- Austrosaurus is, unfortunately, stuck in the WIP stage.
- Diluvicursor is from its paper, but the back individual has pronated hands.

And thus concludes the dinosaurian journey around the world.

What do you think? Any other thoughts? Miracusaurs (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

In general for inaccurate models, I guess we just have to accept how they are and for example only using them in history or culture sections, unless we can somehow crop out inaccurate parts without it looking weird... FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

But what if such inaccuracies are so minor that the casual reader won't notice them at first glance, such as pronated hands that you can only see when you click on the image? Miracusaurs (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Depends on the case I guess, same with skeletal mounts. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, Kunbarrasaurus obviously lacks a macuahuitl but again it should be kept for historical purposes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Would Kunbarrasaurus have necessarily had a macuahuitl? It's tail isn't completely known and such a structure is currently only known to exist in Stegouros, so phylogenetic bracketing can't be used to imply its presence. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 15:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Fair point. Either way, I don't think it needs fixing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What we do have from Kunbarrasaurus does not indicate the same degree of extreme shortening of the tail seen in Stegouros, so it stands to reason that's a derived trait to the clade of Antarctopelta and Stegouros. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I think the "pronation" observed in the model and Diluvicursor aren't really a problem. On the model at least, the elbow looks to be facing partly outwards and the hands are flexed to point inward at the wrist, leading to the palms facing posteromedially (but not entirely posteriorly). IMO, this position is achievable without crossing of the radius and ulna, so to my eye it's fine. It's harder to tell exactly what's going on with the background Diluvicursor, but from what I can make out the palm is not facing all the way down and the fingers are flexed, so again I think this is within reason relative to the overall arm posture. Certainly at least the foreground individual definitely has the right position, and given that's the one people are paying most attention to I'm not that worried about the other one either way. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 22:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think hand orientation in a background animal you have to look closely to even notice is reason enough to throw out an otherwise perfectly good (and gorgeous) reconstruction from the published literature. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:29, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Would the Muttaburrasaurus have had individual or joined fingers? FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a very basal animal, so certainly individual. No reason for a biped to have a mitten. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Carnotaurus Restoration Illustration

Carnotaurus scientific life reconstruction

Remaking the Carnotaurus illustration due to the 2021 integument paper. This is the initial construction sketch. Just getting across anatomy and placement of the osteoderms before starting the final illustration. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, those things are feature scales, not osteoderms. Overall it looks great in my opinion. Maurissauro (talk) 21:50, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, looks good, and in case you haven't seen it, there's a 3D model accompanying the paper that could be used as reference:[45] FunkMonk (talk) 23:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I've completed the Carno reconstruction illustration and it's ready to replace the old one I did years back. Let me know if there's anyting that needs changing. Fred Wierum (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Generally looks good, although I wonder if the horns should be more pointed? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

When I look at the skull, the ends of the horns look more round to me so I thought I'd go more in that direction since it isnt represented as much as the pointed ends. If pointier is prefered then I can tweak that. Fred Wierum (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyone else think that the horns need to be sharper? Fred Wierum (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to say what the keratin covering would look like, but all we can do is follow the published papers. Perhaps follow the restoration in the new skin paper? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

That was my goal to follow that paper. Was there something I missed? Fred Wierum (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The horns seem somewhat more pointed[46] in their restoration, but I don't have a strong opinion on this. FunkMonk (talk) 21:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Horns have been sharpened. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty, unless someone's got any changes required, I think it's ready to replace my old Carno. Fred Wierum (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it, I don't think anyone would find it improper if you had done it, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely dont feel qualified to do that. I can barely make these edits on this review page as well as cant even get a horizontal gallery on my WikiCommons page haha. I'd rather leave it for you review guys. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Now is maybe also the time to judge whether these other images used in the article are now inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• 
• 

Works by User:Dotname2469

• 
  Triceratops
• 
  Tyrannosaurus
• 
  Brachiosaurus (really Giraffatitan)
• 
  Euoplocephalus (Scolosaurus?)
• 
  Euoplocephalus (Scolosaurus?)
• 
  Kentrosaurus
• 
  Kentrosaurus
• 
  Argentinosaurus
• 
  Argentinosaurus
• 
  Compsognathus
• 
  Compsognathus
• 
  Monolophosaurus

As far as I've seen, these images are not yet reviewed, other than Euoplocephalus was fixed by FunkMonk and Compsognathus considered as inaccurate. I will post non-dinosaur ones in paleoart review too. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I also fixed the Kentrosaurus, and I think it was after review somewhere, not sure what talk page... I've added the Giraffatitan and Monolophosaurus he did too, someone said the environment in the latter looked inaccurate once. I think he said he had gotten advice from Darren Naish somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

According to other talks, article Dinosaur Zoo is likely to be an advertisement by that user and these images uploaded for that too probably? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but that itself shouldn't technically be a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Tarbosaurus restoration

• 
  New
• 
  Current

So I ended up uploading this restoration of Tarbosaurus. It may be more useful than the current pic in the article, which shows a subadult and the silhouette of a larger individual with apparently exposed teeth. Besides, why include another size comparison when there's already one in the Description. Not sure if it's a good approach to depict a localized, dorsal arrangement of feathers in tyrannosaurids, also. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, one slightly confusing thing is that the raised leg reaches further below than the leg that's actually planted on the background. FunkMonk (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The metatarsal region and toes are slightly extended, giving this impression. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually held a ruler up against the screen to check, the lowest part of the claw and toe definitely go below the "horizon line" (as outlined by the planted foot), but no big deal, it's not exactly meant to be orthographic like a skeletal hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see! I wasn't sure what you meant by that but now it's clear. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't have any major issues with this restoration, but I should note that the restoration in the Steveoc86 size chart already exists as an independent file:[47], which was removed from the article despite its high quality. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Mmhh, this version makes the localized feathering even more noticeable. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall, the new version is an improvement. I agree with Funk regarding the legs/feet, if the far side foot is planted with no evidence of perspective then it makes more sense for the near side to be, at minimum, in line with it. I agree with there being no need for multiple scale charts in the article, when I first drew my Tarbosuaurs restoration, I don't think there were any adult skeletal diagrams available and is based on a subadult skeletal. I was worried people would automatically assume that the image represented an adult, so at a later date, I added the silhouette of the adult. A couple of years back, I started working on a possible update showing a growth series showing the well preserved juvenile specimen, this subadult, and the adult all fleshed out, but due to time limitations, I haven't finished that. I'm not sure there is an issue with the feathering considering the controversies around tyrannosaur skin unless my knowledge is outdated? What I might do is remove the adult silhouette and human at some point when I get a few mins. Mine’s also a little shrink-wrapped in a few places. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds cool with a growth series, could also be a way to keep both images. Could also make sense if the smallest juvenile has feathers, which gradually disappear in the older stages, or something... But yeah, I don't think localised feathers is inaccurate, some people just find them unlikely. I think Sumatran rhinos kind of gives some leeway. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Steveoc86's restoration was meant to be a subadult, but now I can see it, so it would be better to have a new adult restoration regardless. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Enantiornithes by User:TinyLongwing

• 
  Lectavis
• 
  Cuspirostrisornis
• 
  Brevirostruavis

These really beautiful arts are added by @TinyLongwing:, and looks like not reviewed in Wikipedia, other than Lectacis have been reviewed by @Luxquine: in Here but with no reply. I am not sure but probably they reviewed on Twitter or other place such as Discord? I don't know well about anatomy of these animals, but as I see they are accurate enough, but Luxquine commented some points to fix, so maybe there can be some more. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no major issues, though the toe claws of Brevirostruavis look to be much smaller than they appear in the fossil. I think I see a very short tail fan, which is not unheard of in enants, though the fossil's feathering seems to taper off at the tail. Its bright green coloration is not too concerning in my opinion, since green pigments or structural coloration have already evolved multiple times in modern birds. It's hard to say much conclusively about Cuspirostrisornis since its original 1997 description is so vague and full of blatant misinterpretations. Regardless, I think all three images are very reasonable (and artistically brilliant) reconstructions of their given taxa, and the Lectavis and Brevirostruavis reference their plausible ecology as well, which is much appreciated. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I hadn't seen the other review at all, so thanks for pointing me in that direction also. I'll respond to the user there. I've primarily been posting these to twitter, where the paleoart community has been wonderfully helpful and receptive, and where I have at least a couple of paleontologists who study the Enantiornithes contributing ideas when they have them (though so far no major critiques on accuracy). I definitely welcome comments because I'd like these to be accurate where possible. Lectavis was the first one I did and since I didn't have a skull to reference, no surprise the nares placement is a bit off but that's an easy tweak. There's definitely going to be some speculation involved every time, of course, but I try to draw heavily on the original fossils as well as the appearance and behavior of modern birds (and I am primarily a bird biologist myself).

Anyway, much appreciated, and I'll hopefully be starting my next illustration soon! TinyLongwing (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Papiliovenator

I made a life restoration of the troodontid Papiliovenator. Let me know your thoughts about it.BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, I think, I wonder if it would have had more of a propatagium like birds (looks like the fold by the elbow joint is very deep), or what is the current thinking about this? FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I intended to add a propatagium, but somewhere along the way I made a mistake that I did not catch. I think the current thinking about it now is that most pennaraptorans (yes, apparently oviraptorosaurs too) would have had a propatagium somewhat like that of birds. I made some quick edits to make the propatagium more apparent. I think that is about enough tissue now, but if anyone thinks differently let me know. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Cool, looks fine to me! FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Overall it looks great. The feet appear to be unusually small, but I don't have access to the paper so I can't confirm the scaling. Based on the figure previews on the journal pahe there do seem to be some foot bones present if anyone else is able to take a look. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I made the feet a bit bigger, though they may still need work. The ankles may be a bit short too, but I'm not sure. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are the "hind wings" only on the lower leg? IIRC all "four-winged" dinosaurs had leg feathers that stretched up to the thigh. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

If you look closely you wee see that the hindlimb "remiges" stop just before the thigh, it's just that these feathers are much shorter than the more distally located ones so they sort of just blend in. I could make the feathers longer here to give a more wing-like shape if that is wanted, but keep in mind this was probably not a flying or gliding animal. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Go ahead, make them longer. Besides, even flightless anchiornithines like Anchiornis and Pedopenna have longer hind wings too. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I lengthened the proximal leg remiges. Overall the leg wings are still shorter than in most anchiornithids, but this is not an anchiornithid and in four-winged dinosaurs the leg wings are pretty variable. What are your thoughts on this now? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good. Although I think the leg feathers should be of equal length until the tarsals, instead of abruptly curving at the end. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I made the distal leg remiges longer. What are your thoughts now? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 01:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Much better. Miracusaurs (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think Anchiornis and Pedopenna are the best analogues when Jianianhualong exists. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

What would you suggest doing with the leg feathers? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps lengthen the feathers in the hip region, make them more like the thigh feathers. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I made some edits to the feathers in that spot. I am not sure if that is what you wanted, but I tried to make those feathers look more like they were attached to the thigh. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Stegosaurus

Well, while Suchomimus and Carnotaurus are still in review, I thought I'd start working on a Stegosaurus reconstruction. Ive noticed it may need a more polished, detailed image to add to the roster. Let me know if there's anything worth changing while I work on the step. Fred Wierum 05:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Only thing I'm wondering about is the plate arrangement, doesn't the Sophie specimen have them in a single row or something? Certainly not a stegosaur expert, but I think there was some talk[48] about this. FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The paper describing Sophie's postcrania makes no mention of their arrangement, so I can only presume it was up the discretion of the mounters. For what it's worth, Galton's review of Stegosaurus dermal armour from the end of 2020 [49] discusses the different plate arrangements that have been proposed. Notably he highlights several specimens described as having matrix between overlapping plates, implying they were indeed in alternating rows, so I think that's all good.

I did have the thought that by reversing Hartman's skeletal it's also mirrored the arrangement of the plates (e.g. the big 12th plate is on the right side now), but given that the left-right arrangement of Sophie's plates isn't known and that Galton's paper also reports left-right chirality existing in Stegosaurus regardless, that should be fine. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if it's visible on the thumbnail at the moment but Ive finished the Steg. Let me know if there's anything that needs edits. Fred Wierum 17:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me! There isn't anything needing changed in my opinion, only thing I can think to ask is if the colour of the claws on the hindfoot are intended to blend that much into skin? DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 17:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Claws are fixed now. I also tweaked the head to look more like "Sophie". Fred Wierum (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, let me know if I can add another piece to the Stego's page. I noticed it's surprisingly bare and I'd be more than happy to make a drawing or two of behaviors or theories. I'd love to add more behavior/theory illustrations like that to wiki articles (kinda like old side pencil art from John Sibbick in encyclopedias). Fred Wierum (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks good! I went ahead and added your illustration to the page, I doubt anyone has any more changes to suggest. I do like the idea of some additional sketches in that style, though I admit I'm a bit thin on ideas for subject matter. Maybe one shown rearing, or depicting that one Allosaurus being thagomised in the tail? Other editors might have more ideas. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a drawing of one walking bipedally!? lol -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A suggestion I'd have is to make an illustration based off the "Roadkill" specimen. From what I've heard it has vastly different proportions to Sophie, as can be seen in this skeletal reconstruction by RandomDinos. Apparently Sophie is not fully-grown, whereas Roadkill is. I think it would serve as a nice addition to the page to also have a more mature Stegosaurus present. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus

This life reconstruction of Cryolophosaurus, reconstructed by Daniel Goitom, looks very strange proportion-wise and not accurate with what is currently known about the animal anatomy. I don't think this piece was ever reviewed here, so might be good to get other opinions on it. Larrayal (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It is quite evidently traced over a mount. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks too robust compared to recent views. Perhaps we should do a review of all Cryo images here? FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Is such heavy feathering plausible for a large theropod? I don't think that the Hanson Formation was especially cold... --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 21:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing this image is just speculative or something like that? Patachonica (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Hanson Formation was located during the Early Jurassic approximately on the same latitude than the modern South Georgia (actually, a bit more on the south), so that means quite long nights, in June and July having less than 8 hours of daylight (probably a little bit less, considering the length of the Early Jurassic day), all of this probably causing very strong seasonal differences in temperature. So, at this point, it's pretty much to the artist opinion to give it feathered or scally integuments, at least on paleoecological grounds. The morphological issues stays, however, as well as the fact the artist drew it perhaps a bit too much like a lammergeier. Larrayal (talk) 23:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What's the rules on editing existing art? Instead of going through the whole process of drawing a Cryo from scratch (which, if preferred, I can do that after Steg above), I can easily just correct and edit this Cryo art to be up to the Wiki's standard. Fred Wierum 17:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This is generally accepted other than historical images or images from papers. However, I am not sure that there is a need for additional Cryolophosaurus illustrations (other than, perhaps, to show a feathered one). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Not looking to add more images. Just asking if you guys would prefer me drawing a new one to replace this or editing this one, like a paint over. Fred Wierum 19:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I must say I think yours art superior to this, so almost a waste to modify existing images that are somewhat redundant anyway if you could do it from scratch? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Doing it from scratch would be longer, in my opinion. This art isnt beyond saving. Fred Wierum 20:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Whoops, nevermind. I was under the assumption this piece was already on the the Cryo page. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Where should it go in the article? Perhaps a background would be nice, to replace the Bogdanov image? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Why replace the Bogdanov image? The Bogdanov image looks fine. Patachonica (talk) 20:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus isn't really the article in most need of additional restorations anyway. Plenty of genera with none or only inadequate restorations that need the attention. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but the article doesn't need another image is my point. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The background image is already in use in the Hanson Formation article, and fits it more. A part of the art is already in use for the head anatomy in the article. So far, I see no good reasons to remove the Bogdanov illustration, as it is the only other piece who has the merits to show the animal interacting with its ecosystem. And I second Funkmonk on his opinion, Cryolophosaurus has for now more than enough reconstructions and a lot of other taxa needs more attention. Larrayal (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Asteriornis

A life restoration of Asteriornis. What are your thoughts? BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Albertavenator

Holotype Frontal of Albertavenator curriei

Just a simple illustration of the holotype but I'm still putting it through review in case anyone has any comments. P2N2222A (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Should be fine, considering it doesn't add original interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Meraxes gigas and Giganotosaurus skull reconstructions

Meraxes gigas skull reconstruction

Giganotosaurus skull reconstruction

Skull reconstructions for both Giganotosaurus and Meraxes, as part of a larger series on basically all Carcharodontosaurid skulls. All material used to restore known and unknown regions in descriptions. LMK if there's any issues. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The name should probably be italicized in the Meraxes illustration. Or it could just be removed. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

removed name Eotyrannu5 (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've added the Giga image to its discovery section, where it fit nicely. But it makes me wonder how appropriate the very long skulled reconstructions we otherwise show are. But I noted the skull shown under description may be too long. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'd say based on Meraxes and other carcharodontosaurids we've found since we can be pretty confident Giganotosaurus did not have such a long skull. Wouldn't really make sense structurally either. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Meraxes Size Comparison

• 
  Size comparison

(Kind of) continuing the above topic, here's a size chart for Meraxes. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Meraxes gigas life reconstruction

• 
  Restoration by LWPaleoart

Hello,

Here's a life reconstruction I've made for Meraxes gigas. I used the skeletal reconstruction present in the official paper as my reference.

Please let me know if it should be changed in any way, thank you!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Meraxes_gigas_for_Wikipedia.png

-LWPaleoart / Leandra Walters

LWPaleoart (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

We also have these restorations:

• 
  Restoration by Ansh Saxena 7163
• 
  "Official" press restoration by Carlosdinos

• The fenestrae on the one by Ansh Saxena seem to be too visible, and the feet look off.
• I don't immediately see any issues with the "official" restoration, and those often don't need fixes anyway.

-SlvrHwk (talk) 04:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The one on the left also has very blunt teeth, but extremely thin foot claws. Cool that we have the press release artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realized a reconstruction was already available for use.

I agree about the Ansh Saxena reconstruction.

As for the press release, the jugal definitely seems too large compared to the skeletal in the paper. (Overall the back of the head may be too large, also.) The teeth also appear to be splaying out to the side in the upper jaw. These are pretty minor, but still, just my thoughts.

If my illustration can't be used for this, what's your opinion on me changing this up a bit to be a different carcharodontosaurid taxon that is lacking an official reconstruction, such as Taurovenator violantei perhaps? LWPaleoart (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if the eye is perhaps twice too large in all these reconstructions. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)