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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), 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 Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List#Guidelines for dinosaur restorations 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 If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Various dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy:

• 
  Auroraceratops
• 
  Velociraptor
• 
  Spinosaurus
• 
  Siats

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Auroraceratops should have 3 premaxilla teeth, but I see only 2. Apart from these teeht I don't see any other errors. That's nice you restored Siats as carcharodontosaurid but I think the alternative version as basal Megaraptora is also welcome. Aventadoros (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Third tooth added in Auroraceratops. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note that the latest Sereno paper dismisses the M-shaped Spinosaurus sail and reverts to the rounded one. FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  Updated Spinosaurus to match Sereno's rounded sail. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Works by User:Dotkamina

• 
  Wakinosaurus
• 
  Albalophosaurus
• 
  Hokkaidornis

• Non-dinosaurs

• 
  Taikicetus
• 
  Regnellites

Those images are added to page without review. I personally don't think these are usable, but reviewing is rule... Those images are originated from this document in researchgate,[1] probably author is same as uploader. Before that the images used illustration of Touhou character was uploaded to Commons, I quickly put copyvio template and those are deleted. Not sure about what is happening to Touhou copyright, is using silhouette ok? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello! First of all, I am indeed the dreaded author himself. Originally the images had already been deleted because they contained an image of a Touhou character (the reasons are really simple, I wanted to get out of the typical rule of using a normal silhouette, anime stuff). The original image could be used but since it violated the copyright anyway I updated the contents with normal silhouettes (these just in case come from Freepik under a free use license as long as the source and the name of the entity that uploaded the silhouettes are indicated, which in this case is rawpixel). The Taikicetus with that Touhou silhouette is almost an experiment to see if the alert also went off with a mere silhouette of the character. They had already left a message warning that if I didn't get evidence of permission from the original author it would be deleted anyway, however the author seems to have been inactive for quite some time, and he still hasn't answered my message. So if there are problems with that version of Taikicetus anyway I wouldn't be upset if it were deleted. But I am curious, what exactly is wrong with the rest of the images? What would be necessary for their use to be valid? Dotkamina (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

The copyright situation of the images is still questionable. "Free use" is not explicitly something that is allowed on Wikipedia, especially as their appear to be limitations on what Freepik images can be used for. No NFTs or selling things suggests it would be an NC license which we do not allow, but it is not explicit.

Beyond the copyright status, these images are lacking in some other standards for the wiki. Copyright labels are not allowed, large blocks of text are highly discouraged and in this case detract from the original artwork, and there are some anatomical details that should be adjusted.

My recommendation would be to crop the images to *only* the artwork that you have drawn, so copyright questions and extraneous details are removed, and then re-evaluate the anatomical accuracy of the pieces. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, as you recommended, I have cut the images down to just the drawings. I would like the images to be subject to review for anatomical accuracy. I would like to say in advance that of all the images, I believe the most accurate is the one of Regnellites, given that there are fossil images available, as well as accurate data on its dimensions.

P.S.: The system wouldn't let me add images directly, sorry if it's annoying to have to put links to cropped images this way. Dotkamina (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Wakinosaurus satoi recreation
• 
  Albalophosaurus yamaguchiorum recreation
• 
  Hokkaidornis abashiriensis recreation
• 
  Taikicetus inouei recreation
• 
  Regnellites nagashimae recreation

Looking at least at the dinosaur reconstructions, I think there is a common issue of misshapen and disarticulated limbs. I am also not sure if there is merit in restoring Wakinosaurus given that it is a tooth taxon. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Taikicetus is a mysticete, hence the extreme bending of the tail looks to be impossible to me. The Morrison Man (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Lythronaxargestes that it's pointless to include a reconstruction for Wakinosaurus. It is a tooth taxon of indeterminate position within Theropoda, and this reconstruction has several problems for any theropod. Albalophosaurus basically looks like a Psittacosaur here, especially with the prominent jugal horn that Ohashi & Barrett describe it as *not* having. Don't have anything to say about Hokkaidornis but I'm far from an authority on Cenozoic birds so don't take this an endorsement of accuracy. Agree with Tim on Taikicetus. Skye McDavid (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, the Taikicetus and Regnellites should be reviewed at Paleoart Review rather than here. I will be posting them there for non-dino wikipedians to comment on. Skye McDavid (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree.Wakinosaurus is inaccurate and shrink-wrapped. A more accurate reconstruction should probably be created, and maybe reconstruct it as a megalosaurid if possible? Great Blue Windrunner (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Wakinosaurus is unusable (I think the shrink-wrapping is the least of the issues...), but that doesn't mean it should have a replacement restoration. As was mentioned already, it is a tooth taxon of uncertain affinities. Any kind of restoration will be excessively speculative and thereby useless for Wikipedia purposes.-SlvrHwk (talk) 20:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Proceratosaur Minor Changes

I got the approval to update a lot of proceratosaur stuff previously, I just wanted to make sure to post it here aswell. I had a lot of conversation about fixing skull graphs and reconstructions with other folk, so most are just minor edits. Kileskus I have completely fixed its size reconstruction and added a skull diagram for it.

Furthermore, should I be allowed to post this entire Proceratosaur size graph under the "Proceratosauridae" section?

Size comparison of ALL known members of Proceratosauridae. Phyogeny in the top right is compiled through all known information. Positions of Sinotyrannus and Yutyrannus are currently in debate but still reside in Proceratosauridae.

Skull diagram of Kileskus aristotocus. Known material is in white

Rigorous skeletal of Kileskus aristotocus with known material in white.

SirBlameson (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Considering the crest is unknown in Kileskus, I'm not sure how I feel about restoring it with such apparent certainty. Also, I wouldn't put the cladogram as part of the image given that it may change again in the future. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

I think its fine. All proceratosaurids for which the dorsal part of the skull is preserved have some kind of midline premaxillary/nasal structure, so it's an appropriate assumption unless someone in the literature has explicitly suggested otherwise. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but why not a more conservative crest along the lines of Yutyrannus? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:46, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Kileskus's crest is based off of Guanlong, almost really just copied and pasted. I could give it more of a shallow crest, but given its material and assigning, it's better to base it off of a smaller bodied proceratosaur than a larger bodied one. It's safer to give it the big crest we know the members had rather than the smaller one, but it's anyone's game for it. I can specify in a caption that the crest is based off what we know from Guanlong.

Also, I can remove the cladogram from the Proceratosauridae image, it was only put there because i made a twitter post with it long ago. With that I can try to space them out more SirBlameson (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case, adding a smaller key at the top right would be good. Perhaps the clade name can also go there so you have a nice little box with all the 'data' The Morrison Man (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

My main concern is that the size chart is a bit difficult to read. I would suggest either switching all the binomial names to black text or else do a key like the size chart here in place of the embedded cladogram. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

By coloring the names in the cladogram, it can be combined with a key without having to choose one over the other. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Awesome, I'll do this SirBlameson (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Reuploaded the image, does it look better?

If it doesnt appear try clicking. SirBlameson (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, although the specific names for both Guanlong wucaii and Proceratosaurus bradleyi are misspelled. If you fix that I have no further notes. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oops, yeah i'll fix that. That's what I get for typing fast lol SirBlameson (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Gualicho shinyae as a noasaurid

I made this for a project I'm working on, and since all of the reconstructions of Gualicho on the wiki are based on the paper skeletal, I figured I'd submit it here to provide an alternate noasaurid reconstruction.

A size chart of Gualicho shinyae reconstructed as a basal noasaur.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 04:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I assume the scale bar is 1 meter? That should be mentioned in the caption. What FunkMonk said about pose on the other ones applies here too but otherwise looks fine. Skye McDavid (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It is good that an alternative reconstruction of Gualicho as a noasaurid was being created. I don't see any glaring anatomical errors, the only thing I would do is add the scale bar value as Skye mentioned above. Aventadoros (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Velocisaurus unicus, Elaphrosaurus bambergi, and unnamed Angeac "Ornithomimisaur"

here are some more pieces I made for the project I thought I'd submit! All three are life reconstructions/size charts, and the first one is Velocisaurus as the page states that it is the smallest noasaur, and imo should provide a visual to go along with it. The second one is Elaphrosaurus as imo the size chart currently on the page feels a little off in proportions and scaling. And lastly we have an unnamed taxon from the Angeac-Charente beds. this one is a little different as the species doesn't have a wiki page, but I figured we could use an image for the page on the formation. The preliminary description recovered it as an ornithomimisaur, but since then multiple researchers have suggested that it much more closely resembles elaphrosaurs, and I agree, so that's how I've reconstructed it here.

Size chart of Velocisaurus unicus reconstructed as a basal elaphrosaur.

A size chart of Elaphrosaurus bambergi.

A size chart of the unnamed Angeac-Charente "Ornithomimisaur" reconstructed as an elaphrosaur.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I find no records in the literature of the Angeac taxon being recognised as anything other than an ornithomimosaur since the initial publication. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

No papers have come out since then, but there were among other things a blog post by a French paleontologist suggesting this, and observation seems to support that idea as it much more closely resembles an elaphrosaur than any known ornithomimid. The reason no papers have come out testing the idea that it's a noasaur is likely simply that a description has not been published yet and therefore it can't be tested. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 05:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we should generally only reflect reliably published ideas, so that might be problematic. FunkMonk (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, how about the other two? Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The anatomy seems fine, but a general issue I see in some of them is that it seems like their center of balance is off, particularly Elaphrosaurus and Shaximiao. Like their feet are too far forwards compared to the ankle and knee, and they would tip backwards if just standing in that pose. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

That’s the pose used by the main skeletal I referenced, made by someone I def trust. Honestly it doesn’t seem that off to me. In life it would probably not be so off balance that the animal couldn’t keep itself upright. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The biggest issue is just that at this point it would be very difficult to repose it without messing up the colors. (I also won’t have access to the project file for about a week.) Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The pose would make sense for a single leg if the other leg was offset, but like this with only one visible, it implies both legs are posed the same way in parallel, which would be problematic. But it isn't that huge of a deal, maybe someone else has something to add. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

As with the others, there is no indication of what size the scalebar represents. This can be added to the caption. I've also heard that the Angeac-Charente Theropod may not be an ornithomimosaur but its actual phylogenetic placement is up in the air until it's formally named and described. I agree with FunkMonk's comments about posture. If you don't want to repose it you can add an offset right leg in a lower layer and you won't have to change the colors at all. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! I won’t be able to add that for a lil bit, but in the meantime do I have permission to add the rest minus the Angeac one? Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Shaximiao Elaphrosaur, MNN TIG-6, and Deltadromeus

Here are three more noasaurid reconstructions, the unnamed elaphrosaur from the Shaximiao formation (CCG 20011). A size chart and reconstruction of MNN TIG-6 for the Spinostropheus page, since there are no size charts currently on the page and the noasaurid reconstruction on the page seems far too derived for MNN TIG-6. And lastly Deltadromeus since there surprisingly aren't any noasaurid life recons on the page. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

As above, there is no indication of what size the scale bar represents. This can be added to the caption. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve updated all of the captions with the scale! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 23:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Have these been cleared for upload now that they indicate scale? Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

They likely have the same posture issues as the above, but I don't think it precludes them from being used (informative vs lifelike) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

A size chart of the Shaximiao Elaphrosaurid CCG 20011

A size chart of MNN TIG-6 "Spinostropheus" reconstructed as a basal noasaur

A size chart of Deltadromeus reconstructed as a noasaur

Various unreviewed diagrams

Going through my uploads, I noticed a few older ones that haven't been reviewed yet, for whatever reason. A random assortment, with a couple more focused sections to follow shortly: -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Ibirania size
• 
  Chirostenotes size
• 
  Prenocephale size
• 
  Platytholus skeletal
• 
  Asiatyrannus size

The jaw of Asiatyrannus feels a bit dislocated. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, this is well within the range of reasonable gape angles for a tyrannosaur. See this paper. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Platytholus skeletal looks good, as do the silhouettes. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree the Asiatyrannus jaw is not correct. While the angle of the gape is fine, it is out of articulation, the lines where the ventral margin of the skull and upper margin of the jaw meet would be in the middle of the neck. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

See here. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair, should be fine then. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Jurassic ankylopollexians of Iberia

(Or rather, putative non-dryosaurid dryomorphans, depending on the phylogenetic placement of certain taxa...) A series of diagrams started some time ago with Oblitosaurus but not finished until I recently completed Draconyx. Fortunately there are published size estimates for all three. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Draconyx size
• 
  Draconyx skeletal
• 
  Oblitosaurus size
• 
  Oblitosaurus skeletal
• 
  Hesperonyx size
• 
  Hesperonyx skeletal

Some stegosaurs

Mongolostegus is fairly straightforward; shown as a kind of generalized stegosaur since its phylogenetic position hasn't been tested in depth. Adratiklit is complicated since the assignment of all of the bones but the holotype is based on tenuous assumptions. Until arguments are published to the contrary, the diagram includes all of the referred material. Yanbeilong is filled in with Stegosaurus (including an alleged specimen from the Cretaceous of China that I suspect is much closer to Yanbeilong).

This section may expand, depending on what I have time to do in the future. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Both stegosaurs and ankylopollexians for are correct. Aventadoros (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• 
  Mongolostegus skeletal
• 
  Adratiklit size
• 
  Adratiklit skeletal
• 
  Yanbeilong skeletal

Shuilingornis

Shuilingornis

Newly described gansuid avialan from China. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks nice, except it seems the hindmost foot (as in the lifted one behind in the distance) is below the horizon-line because it's below the level of the front most foot, which shouldn't be possible if we assume the ground is straight horizontal. FunkMonk (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Iofry's skeletal, I wonder if the eyes are placed too far forward? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with SlvrHwk, eyes are too far forward. Skye McDavid (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Xenotarsosaurus

• 

Found in commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The lack of dynamic range makes it pretty hard to see at thumbnail size and the giant signature doesn't help. Perhaps could be more useful if isolated from the background. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

the signature is obnoxiously large too... Skye McDavid (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Irritator challengeri reconstruction

Life restoration of the brazilian spinosaurid Irritator challengeri

Hello. I made this reconstruction of the brazillian spinosaurid Irritator challengeri and I would like it to be reviewed so I could upload it on the Irritator Wikipedia page. I used primarily the skeletal reconstruction made by SirBlameson and for the skull I used the skull restoration made by Olof Moleman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sauroarchive (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good for the most part. I'm not too familiar with the range of motion for theropod hands, but the left one looks unnatural here, with the palm facing too far forward. It would also probably be best to show both arms/hands in a similar pose. Also, adding humans to life restorations is generally discouraged for Wikipedia purposes, especially when we already have a dedicated size chart. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Works by ChDinosaurs

• 
  Giganotosaurus
• 
  Tyrannosaurus
• 
  Guanlong

Seems not used in articles. He is Japanese illustrator who streams on YouTube I know of.[2] Any opinions for reconstructions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:22, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The Tyrannosaurus seems to have a very small head and thin tail? FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Ardetosaurus

Ardetosaurus size

Size chart for the new Morrison diplodocine. 12:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC) -SlvrHwk (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ardetosaurus viator

Follows the known material and published skeletal.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ardetosaurus (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

Ardetosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Taurovenator life reconstructions

Originally posted this in Wikiproject Palaeontology's palaeoart review section, but was informed this was the place to go, Both of these images were added to the Taurovenator page without review, both by user César Díaz Frías. They were apparently created with direct input from the new paper's authors. They seem solid to my eye, outside of a few minor nitpicks, though considering the circumstances I figured it would be best to put them up for review.

Borophagus (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

For me these reconstructions are very good. Aventadoros (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Various Dinosaurs (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

• 
  Argentinosaurus
• 
  Ceratosaurus
• 
  Eotriceratops
• 
  Massospondylus
• 
  Patagotitan
• 
  Therizinosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no mention in the publication describing Patagotitan that it had osteoderms. I associate osteoderms more with saltasauroids than longkosaurs. Therefore, they should be removed in both Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan. Aventadoros (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Mendozasaurus had osteoderms definitively so their presence on colossosaurs is good. However, Ceratosaurus and Massospondylus definitely did not have osteoderms, so the dark spots that appear to mimic osteoderms or feature scales should be removed. They are acceptable to leave on the very center of the spine in Cerato, but should be much less promiment (likely subdermal) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Mendozasaurus had osteoderms, but as I mentioned earlier neither in Patagotitan nor Futalognkosaurus were found. Can osteoderms therefore be attributed to all colossosaurs? Besides, the systematics of Titanosauria is very unstable and it is difficult to establish good affinities between taxa within this clade. Aventadoros (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Mendozasaurus is by definition a lognkosaur, and has almost always been found to be a colossosaur including in all recent studies. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

There isn't currently evidence to definitively justify giving every titanosaur osteoderms, but support for this feature seems to be increasingly common, e.g. probable basal titanosaur osteoderms from the Açu Formation (?Tiamat). Certainly the logic that "they haven't been described in taxon x and should therefore be removed" is not fully sound. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't have a problem with osteoderms on Patagotitan or Argentinosaurus, but they should definitely be removed on Massospondylus and I would also recommend removing them on Ceratosaurus. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Osteoderms removed on Ceratosaurus; feature scales reduced on Massospondylus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:59, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ceratosaurus is known to a have had a single row of osteoderms on the midline of the back, but there's no evidence of osteoderms anywhere else on the animal. Regarding Therizinosaurus, I think it should probably be a little more upright and have a longer neck. The degree of feathering is controversial, but I'm agnostic on the matter. We don't actually know the exact body proportions of Therizinosaurus, so taxa like Nothronychus and Neimongosaurus are the most effective proxies and they appear to have had very long necks at least as long as their tails, if not longer. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Skeletal of Tethyshadros insularis

This skeletal was added into article without review. Any comments?

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 04:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Those are by an experienced illustrator and were published in a peer-reviewed paper. As such, they shouldn't really need review. I think the bigger issue is that they are sourced from EurekAlert, which I remember having licensing issues with in the past. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah source[3] only says "CC BY" and nothing other than that. I don't think image with unclear licence can be uploaded. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/May_2024#h-New_image_for_an_article_about_an_extinct_species-20240520194800, done before uploader uploaded this image to Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• 

And there is actual cropped one from paper (CC BY 4.0). Why not use this instead? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Emiliasaura

Follows the published material and skeletal

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Emiliasaura (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

Emiliasaura

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Yuanyanglong

Yuanyanglong (Ddinodan)

Following the published material and Avimimus.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

For me looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't it have larger wings (or at leats primary feathers)? following Caudipteryx, I believe the only oviraptorosaur we have preserved wigs from. In fact, it has the shortest wing-feathers where they should be longest here. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Caudipteryx is also half the size and has been proposed to be secondarily flightless. I don't know if the comparison for integument, especially wings, is apt. Ddinodan (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We have plenty of sources suggesting oviraptorosaurs would have used their wings to cover eggs during nesting and for display, and none that indicate they would have somehow shortened their wings after becoming flightless, and that's not exactly what happened to for example ostriches etc. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think longer legs and a smaller skull may be warranted; this guy had some funny proportions (see skeletal below). -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yuanyanglong skeletal

• 
  Skeletal diagram

Reconstructed skeleton of Yuanyanglong including the holotype (white) and referred (orange) specimens. Gaps filled with Avimimus/Caudipteryx. I hadn't initially planned on illustrating the full skeleton, but it looked strange with the floating skull so I filled in the tail and neck. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yuanyanglong (UDL)

And here's mine.

• 

New genera of 2024

Working on doing them all, will update this as I get through them. All follow their published material, skeletals if available, and close relatives.

Most already have reconstructions on their pages, but maybe these can be used elsewhere (such as the 2024 in archosaur paleo page. I think it would be neat).

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Ddinodan (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't Datai have a second horn added to its cheek? It seems to me that it is not visible.

Aventadoros (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The reconstructions look well made and I think they will be used for various articles. I have only a minor comment on Datai, as I feel that the second year on the jugal is missing. 2A00:F41:C70:9F9C:A0EC:EAF:FFA:7F0 (talk) 10:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added all of them to 2024 in archosaur paleontology, except for Datai. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A few more. I'll be redoing Yuanyanglong, and editing Datai, in the next couple days.

Ddinodan (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A few more. Yuanyanglong has been redone, and Datai has been edited to include the other osteoderm.

• 
• 
• 
• 

Ddinodan (talk) 07:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

On what basis do Chakisaurus and Tietasaurus have partial feathered bodies? Is there any evidence to suggest that ornithopods may have had such structures? Aventadoros (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

If I’m correct, it’s based on Kulindadromeus. Just because an integument (e.g. osteoderms, feathers) is not found on a specific taxon doesn’t mean it explicitly didn’t have it. Miracusaurs (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

It is possible that it was based on Kulindadromeus, but Elasmaria was more derived that this basal neornithischian. I don't know if you can attribute the presence of feathering in other dinosaur groups based on one discovery. Other than that, I have no other comments on Tietasaurus and Chakisaurus. Aventadoros (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

new Spinosaurus

• 
• 

Found in Commons. Any opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Are those supposed to be flippers on the hands? FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I think thats just a result of the detailing being a little inconsistent. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Either way, the musculature and joints look quite wonky overall. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the neck should be so robust where it meets the skull when its so narrow where it meets the body. I don't know of any analogous condition suggested for any other non-avian theropods. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems there is anther work by same user. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 08:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

More dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy:

• 
  Compsognathus
• 
  Silesaurus
• 
  Mononykus
• 
  Carnotaurus
• 
  Moros

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Carnotaurus should not have osteoderms. The skin impressions that were previously thought to be osteoderms have been reinterpreted as irregular feature scales. And there definitely shouldn't be more than two unguals on the hands, if any at all. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Silesaurus should only have three claws on the hand, but should have four toes on the feet. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Don't think I've ever seen Compsognathus restored with such a concave upper surface of the snout? What's that based on? FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I assume that's just the outline of the antorbital fenestra visible through the skin. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  The skull of the Compsognathus is based on Scott Hartman's restoration. Not sure if you're asking about the outline, or what is indeed the fenestra. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaurs by year (Atlantis536)

Megalosaurus

Megalosaurus

Hey y'all! I'm doing a project where I'm drawing one dinosaur named every year since 1824. Starting with the very first non-avian dinosaur named, Megalosaurus bucklandii. This reconstruction is based on Gunnar Bivens' skeletal on DeviantArt. What do you think? Atlantis536 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The eye is probably too small, but its otherwise unobjectionable. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the size of the eye minus the sclerotic ring in the skeletal. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the sclerotic ring would be embedded in the eye. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

FunkMonk said in an archived thread that the visible portion of the eye should match the inner diameter of the sclerotic ring, not the outer. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, another thing, all of them seem to have pretty extensive cheeks, even the theropods? What is that based on? FunkMonk (talk) 09:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The cheeks start where the tooth row ends according to the Megalosaurus skeletal. The Streptospondylus skeletal doesn't show the teeth so I just guessed. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

One of many licensing/copyright issues in this project; almost all of this is directly traced from Gunnar Bivens' skeletal. While the skeletal is licensed under the Creative Commons, it should be properly cited in your file description. Copyrighted skeletals (like Scott Hartman's, used below) can be referenced but not traced... -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've mentioned this on one of your past drawings, but it seems you have ignored it here: The hind legs appear to protrude directly from the abdomen. There should still be some kind of delineation for most of the leg to indicate its articulation with the pelvic region. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Iguanodon

Iguanodon

For 1825, here is Iguanodon bernissartensis, based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this should go without saying, but apparently a reminder is needed—you can reference a copyrighted skeletal diagram but not trace it. Slightly reposing two of the limbs (the only real differences in silhouette between Scott's Iguanodon and yours) doesn't make it a unique work. Also the manual unguals go beyond the imaginary "floor" plane. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The manual unguals are supposed to slightly protrude towards the viewer. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Streptospondylus

Streptospondylus

Next up, for 1832, I have Streptospondylus altdorfensis, based on the skeletal by IJReid on DeviantArt. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hylaeosaurus

Hylaeosaurus

For 1833, here's the oft-forgotten original dinosaur, Hylaeosaurus armatus. It's based on Scott Hartman's Gastonia since the Vectipelta description found Hylaeosaurus and Gastonia to be sister taxa. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:17, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

A Gastonia clone probably isn't the best basis for Hylaeosaurus since the latter's polacanthid/-ine affinities aren't consistently supported. Regardless, this drawing doesn't seem to accurately represent the distinct cervical–pectoral lateral osteoderms of Hylaeosaurus, and the unfounded stegosaur-like caudal spines are a bit too speculative for Wikipedia purposes. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The neck spines are supposed to be drawn as if being seen from the side, so they’re not too large here. Also, most depictions of Hylaeosaurus have the tail spines (including the one currently in the article), so I figured it would be okay to add them. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thecodontosaurus

Thecodontosaurus

For 1836, have the basal sauropodomorph Thecodontosaurus antiquus. This reconstruction is based on Jaime Headden's skeletal while the coloration is based on the Agrosaurus I submitted here a while back. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Plateosaurus

Plateosaurus

Another sauropodomorph -- this time Plateosaurus trossingensis from 1837. Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Cetiosaurus

Cetiosaurus

The first sauropod skeleton known -- Cetiosaurus oxoniensis named in 1841. Based on Dan Folkes' skeletal. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Regnosaurus

Regnosaurus

For 1848, have a mysterious dinosaur, Regnosaurus northamptoni. This reconstruction is based on the skeletal provided by Tracy Ford on Paleofile.com, itself based on Barrett and Upchurch (1995)'s interpretation of it as a huayangosaurid. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Regnosaurus is one of those taxa that I am uncertain really benefit from a life restoration on Wikipedia, given the limited known material and very unresolved taxonomic affinities. Nevertheless, Tracy Ford's skeletals are not rigorous and shouldn't be used as a reference (see also Polacanthus below). -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Pelorosaurus

Pelorosaurus

For 1850, here's Pelorosaurus brevis. Based on Nima Sassani's skeletal on DeviantArt. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Aepisaurus

Aepisaurus

For 1852, have Aepisaurus elephantinus. This reconstruction is based on Scott Hartman's Camarasaurus, since McIntosh (1990) and Le Loeuff (1993) found that Aepisaurus resembled camarasaurids. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

If Aepisaurus is going to have a life restoration on Wikipedia (which it probably shouldn't), it should be more generalized, not just a Camarasaurus replica. A longer neck might be helpful for this. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I figured Camarasaurus is already generic enough of a macronarian/eusauropod, so I don't think proportion changes are necessary. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Massospondylus

Massospondylus

A slightly more well-known dinosaur this time: Massospondylus carinatus, named in 1854. Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Atlantis536 (talk) 11:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Troodon

Troodon

A once well-known, now dubious taxon: Troodon formosus, originally named in 1856. Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal of Talos sampsoni. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Are the proportions consistent with the new MOR Troodon mount? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Eyeballing it, I think so. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Stenopelix

Stenopelix

Back with a basal ceratopsian from Germany: Stenopelix valdensis named in 1857. Based on a skeletal reconstruction by Pete Buchholz on DeviantArt. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hadrosaurus

Hadrosaurus

The first good non-avian dinosaur from North America -- Hadrosaurus foulkii from 1858. Based on a skeletal reconstruction by Genya Masukawa. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus

Scelidosaurus

For 1859, have Scelidosaurus harrisonii. Took me a painfully long time detailing all those osteoderms. Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Scott Hartman's Scelido skeletal is nice but outdated. David Norman's recent extensive monograph series contains several updated reconstructions that should be helpful. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I've heard Norman reconstructed the skull too large though. Cisiopurple was asked to update his Scelidosaurus following the same source but someone told him not to because of said error. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

Archaeopteryx

The original dino-bird, Archaeopteryx lithographica, named in 1861. Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Polacanthus

Polacanthus

Polacanthus foxii representing 1865. Based on a skeletal reconstruction by Tracy Ford. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus

• 
• 

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Rather strange leg position, it would tip forwards. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Definitely way too front-heavy. Also, I believe it should still have four fingers. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

all of this, plus the taxonomy on the version which includes it is wrong. Skye McDavid (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Huaxiazhoulong

Huaxiazhoulong (Ddinodan)

Follows the published material, paper skeletal, and close relatives.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Wow, looks very good! Aventadoros (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Huaxiazhoulong size comparison

• 
  Size comparison

Size chart for Huaxiazhoulong. Fortunately the nearly-complete skeleton means little speculation regarding body shape. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Huaxiazhoulong (UDL)

• 

Kuru kulla skull diagram

Just finished and uploaded this skull diagram of Kuru kulla for use on the eponymous article. One of the authors who described it said it looked good when I ran it by him. I figures it was complete enough to warrant a diagram because similarly fragmentary taxa (Kileskus, Atrociraptor, etc) have complete skull diagrams. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Certainly easier to understand when the unknown bones are also included (of course marked as unknown). FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

New dinosaur images

I’ve made images of more dinosaurs since I’ve last posted here, including:

- Acanthopholis horrida
- Agathaumas sylvestris
- Ankylosaurus magniventris
- Argyrosaurus superbus
- Brachiosaurus altithorax
- Brontosaurus excelsus
- Camptosaurus dispar
- Centrosaurus apertus
- Ceratosaurus nasicornis
- Craterosaurus pottonensis
- Cumnoria prestwichii
- Diplodocus longus
- Dryosaurus altus
- Euoplocephalus tutus
- Genyodectes serus
- Hypsilophodon foxii
- Mochlodon suessi
- Monoclonius crassus
- Ornithodesmus cluniculus
- Ornithomimus velox
- Ornithopsis hulkei
- Orthomerus dolloi
- Saurolophus osborni
- Stegoceras validum
- Stegosaurus stenops
- Struthiosaurus transsylvanicus
- Tornieria africana
- Torosaurus latus
- Triceratops horridus
- Tyrannosaurus rex

Before I upload any of these, which do you want to see and/or which do you think are needed the most in this Wikiproject? Atlantis536 (talk) 13:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

We definetely don't need the chimeric or invalid taxa (Agathaumas, Monoclonius, Ornithodesmus). The most-needed would be Struthiosaurus, Mochlodon, and Tornieria imo as they do not have good depictions at present. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Here they are

• 
  Struthiosaurus
• 
  Mochlodon
• 
  Tornieria

Atlantis536 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Navaornis

• 

New work for newly described bird by Paleo Miguel. Any thoughts? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Overall I don't have too much objection to the reconstruction itself, however I do wonder why the author suggests a plant-based diet as the bird has plants in its beak. The diet of Enantiornithes is very poorly understood and I think that a non-reconstruction should not suggest something unless there is 100% certainty. Aventadoros (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)