Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Allosaurus Jaws Steveoc86.jpg
- Reason
- An absolutely fantastic original sketch of a well-known dinosaur used well in an FA. Little small maybe but easily meets the requirements. Fully sourced. How often do you see original artwork being released to the project? Especially at this quality. For the curious, the user's other artwork can be found here
- Articles in which this image appears
- Allosaurus
- Creator
- Steveoc 86
- Support as nominator --upstateNYer 03:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support Looks to be well-documented from a reliable source, noting where the drawing is speculative (texture). Good quality, definitely adds to the accompanying article. Good idea to encourage quality work in a novel contribution to the project. Jujutacular T · C 08:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Durova412 15:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Avenue (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. --Humanfeather 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support I'd call the drawing original research, but it is well referenced enough to not really have to worry. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you User:UpstateNYer for nominating my picture and for those supporting it. Regarding the problem of original research and speculation: This is a problem that applies to all fleshed out reconstructions of prehistoric animals. It's very rare that you get extensive skin impressions and other soft tissue anatomy for a whole animal. I have tried to include references for the pictures beacause of this. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- And I think you've done a fine job of doing that. upstateNYer 14:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Question Superb drawing, but is the angle of gape supported by the research? The Allosaurus article says: "In the lower jaws, the bones of the front and back halves loosely articulated, permitting the jaws to bow outward and increasing the animal's gape", but is the specifically depicted angle supported by sources? Spikebrennan (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. The drawing and gape angle are based on Figure 6 in this research paper [1] Figure 2 also shows the 'gape'. (It's a PDF, so requires somthing like Adobe Reader). The passage you're refering to is disscusing the ability of the jaws to widen, somthing that would be noticable in front view as opposed to side view. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- Question Superb drawing, but is the angle of gape supported by the research? The Allosaurus article says: "In the lower jaws, the bones of the front and back halves loosely articulated, permitting the jaws to bow outward and increasing the animal's gape", but is the specifically depicted angle supported by sources? Spikebrennan (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- And I think you've done a fine job of doing that. upstateNYer 14:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you User:UpstateNYer for nominating my picture and for those supporting it. Regarding the problem of original research and speculation: This is a problem that applies to all fleshed out reconstructions of prehistoric animals. It's very rare that you get extensive skin impressions and other soft tissue anatomy for a whole animal. I have tried to include references for the pictures beacause of this. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Factsontheground (talk) 14:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- A general comment regarding the caption: I think it would be important that the phase, as hypothesized by Robert Bakker, where included. Other reasurchers/evidence could come along in the future and cast doubt on this interpretation. It's important that this isn't portrayed as a universal fact, few things are in palaeontology. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Promoted File:Allosaurus Jaws Steveoc86.jpg --Makeemlighter (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
