Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Image requests[edit]

Here you can request images for articles within this project, such as photographs or artistic restorations.

Most wanted (articles lacking illustration)[edit]

  • Life restoration of Kelenken. Here is a skeletal restoration[1] and a picture of the skull[2]FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A life restoration of Plagiobatrachus, even though there is virtually no data about this animal floating around in the Internet. Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • *Life restoration of Helveticosaurus (no skeletal reconstructions on the internet but there is a life reconstruction found here). Smokeybjb (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Life restoration of Tianyuraptor. Here is a copyrighted life restoration [3]. Here is the picture of the whole skeleton [4] and the skull [5]. --Spotty 11222 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Life restoration of Hadropithecus. Illustrations can be found in Lemurs of Madagascar (Tropical Field Guides) by Russell A. Mittermeier, et al. A 2008 life restoration by Stephen Nash can be found here. Provided illustrations will also be used on an upcoming, full-length article on subfossil lemurs. –Visionholder (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If anybody would be willing to do a restoration of the Cycadeoidea plant, I would appreciate it. A copyrighted image of it can be seen here. Chris the Paleontologist (talkcontribs) 20:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Requesting an image of Cambaytherium thewissi for the article, progenitor of rhinos & horses. AshLin (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Most wanted (additional illustrations for articles that already have at least one)[edit]

Is anyone doing Mesopropithecus? Seems to be the only of those lemurs that don't have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Life restoration of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik as a fish swimming in murky water. The life restoration we have are either quite crude or show them as terrestrial. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Image verifiability[edit]

A question of verifiability has been raised regarding images of fossils at Fossil, please take a moment and comment on the subject [[6]] as the outcome could easily strip images from many of the articles under this projects banner. --Kevmin (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A guide to feather colors[edit]

Extensively referenced, this pretty much constrains what should be acceptable in reconstructions of feathered critters (might also extend to pycnofibers, see e.g. File:Pterodaustro BW.jpg) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What, where? FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure which one he means (seems to have forgotten to add the link) but I wrote one here fwiw: [7] MMartyniuk (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving[edit]

Is someone families with the archiving bots able to set one up here? The review page is getting very long! --Kevmin § 17:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I usually just do it manually, I'll do it now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated illustration help[edit]

I was wondering if one of the artists would be up for working with me (and hopefully a lemur veterinarian) on creating a labeled, color illustration of the lemuriform sublingua. I put in a request for help at the Graphics Lab, but got no replies. The article for the subject has an illustration from 1918, but it is only in the public domain for the U.S. I would love to see a new illustration or two (from the underside and possible from the side). SVG is the desired format, but I'll take anything at this point. I'm hoping to get a new illustration before submitting the article for FAC. – Maky « talk » 18:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lost contributors[edit]

We've just lost two of our paleoart contributors due to Wiki formalities, darnit.

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ferahgo_the_Assassin

Now: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArthurWeasley

Hope they'll come back anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it, they were banned for trying to delete their own images? MMartyniuk (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
AW was apparently, he tried to change the licenses to a non-free one, and some admin just went and deleted them all. Then another admin blamed AW for it (even tough admins have to check images before deleting them), and blocked him when he nominated some of his inaccurate images for deletion (nomination of own images is allowed). So AW didn't actually do anything prohibited, the admin just got annoyed.[8] Really a shame. I unblocked him, but I can understand that he got upset. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Pinnae on nonmammalian cynodonts[edit]

Kemp (2007), p. 438, argues in detail that, because of their role in jaw articulation, the quadrate, articular, and postdentary rod of nonmammalian cynodonts collectively had a minimum mass of 0.5 g and that, as a consequence, the animals could not have been sensitive to frequencies greater than 2 kHz. At frequencies in excess of 10 kHz, a pinna can act as an acoustic horn and provide directional sensitivity; Kemp argues, though, that pinnae are useless for an animal limited to 2 kHz, so we can conclude that nonmammalian cynodonts did not have them.

The images File:Trirachodon.jpg, File:Thrinaxodon BW.jpg, File:Cynognathus BW.jpg, File:Exaeretodon BW.jpg, File:Pachygenelus.jpg, File:Oligokyphus BW.jpg, and File:Tritylodon BW.jpg all clearly exhibit pinnae. The images thus differ appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements, so there are criteria sufficient for removing them.

One more: File:Massetognathus.jpg.Inserted by Peter Brown (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Though the case for removing File:Morganucodon.jpg is weaker, I challenged the image in June, 2012; the response at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thrinaxodon BW.jpg was "Kept: Files are in use and/or licences can not be revoked." Do I conclude that the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review of criteria sufficient for removing an image is in error? There is nothing there about an image's being in use. Peter Brown (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Images should not be deleted, just be removed, and we have a template to add for inaccurate images (See[9]). Then they can be corrected afterwards. As is, it seems to be somewhat hypothetical whether they had pinnae or not, therefore not based on direct evidence? Either way, removal of ears would be an easy fix with Photoshop if we all agree it has to be done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the distinction. An odd use of the term "remove", which should be better explained; usually, when something is removed from a location then it isn't there anymore. I suppose that "direct evidence", in this case, would be molds of these therapsids' heads that show clearly the absence of pinnae. But Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review considers a difference in "implied non-skeletal evidence" to be sufficient for removal, and—given the care with which Kemp has studied the matter and the absence of rebuttals—this evidence is quite strong. Peter Brown (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm definitely going to revise mine. I'd say that Kemp's reasoning is pretty solid, because we know the function of pinnae, and we can infer from the jaw anatomy of cynodonts that pinnae would not have been effective. However, for early mammaliaforms, its less clear. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The author of the other images is not around anymore, but I can fix them myself. Others are of course welcome to give it a try as well. Should there be holes, or just nothing, instead? FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think there would be holes, but I'll have to check on that. If the animals are restored with lots of fur, the fur may cover the holes. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Probelesodon, or at least hope I did (when cookies clears). Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Only Massetognathus missing now (apart from Morganucodon, which I'll give some more hair around the ear). Anyone wanna give it a shot? FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where your latest Morganucodon is. If it has an external ear, as I've noted, it needs to be near an eardrum, which in turn must be associated with the angular bone. It has to be either in the jaw itself or at the back of the neck near the jaw joint. Peter Brown (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Only saw this now, it has no external ear, you can see it in the Morganucodon article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposing explicit sourcing as a criterion for this sub-project[edit]

See proposal here. Samsara (FA  FP) 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a disclaimer that "passing review" doesn't guarantee inclusion.[edit]

While this is no doubt a valuable source for improving portrayals of prehistoric life, I think it bears mention that simply because there is an image available, editors are in no obligation to include it in an article, e.g. if it is of lesser quality to existing images, or its inclusion would unnecessarily crowd an image, or other reasons described in WP:PERTINENCE. I propose the following changes to the header text (additions in italics):

You can also request images for articles within the paleontology project on the paleoart review-talk page. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate paleoart"[10], so they can be 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.

Completion of paleoart review does not guarantee that images will be used in Wikipedia. Images, even accurate ones, may not be included in articles if consensus determines they do not add value to the article, for example if they add clutter to an illustrated article, give undue weight to certain ideas, or are otherwise not pertinent.

Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I mean, generally speaking we use the best illustrations, and it should be a given that just because it is accurate doesn't mean it'll be used. But I'll let other decide on this. IJReid discuss 00:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say it's a given, we have plenty of "good" images that are not in use, and images are replaced all the time. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)