Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 2015

? 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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 If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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

Images by commons:User:Offy

• 
  Teratophoneus
• 
  Andesaurus and Giganotosaurus
• 
  Sao Khua Formation Siamosaurus and Phuwiangosaurus
• 
  Carnotaurus
• 
  Oviraptor and Shuvuuia
• 
  Procompsognathus
• 
  Antarctopelta and Vegavis
• 
  Coelophysis bauri
• 
  Stegosaurus
• 
  Coelophysis bauri
• 
  Stegosaurus and Ceratosaurus
• 
  Ouranosaurus
• 
  Dilong
• 
  Sarcosuchus imperator and Ouranosaurus nigeriensis

All these images by the commons user Offy seem to be reasonably accurate, with only minor issues and some dirty backgrounds. Are these adequate for use in articles, or should modifications be made, like smaller eyes and cleaner backgrounds. IJReid ^discuss 00:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Some of them seem slightly like they were based off other images. But yeah, clean-up could be nice... FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Teratophoneus have some kind of feathers? And the Siamosaurus' hands look kind of broken, at least to me. They look bent too far inwards for a dinosaur to physically do. The Carnotaurus should also be thicker horizontally at the tail because of the greatly enlarged caudofemoralis; the drawing as of now seems like it's based on the older Carnotaurus tail. The head's also a little off, since it's longer in length than it is in height (when Carnotaurus' skull was shorter in length than it was in height). The fingers should be fused into one single mass of tissue, as well. The Oviraptor looks pretty good, though, but the Shuvuuia is hard to check; it looks pretty good, but I can't tell if it has psuedowings or not. Not sure if the Giganotosaurus and Andesaurus are too far off from being accurate; the Giganotosaurus looks like it may be a little bit shrink-wrapped in the skull and the Andesaurus looks a little too diplodocid-esque.Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. The Teratophoneus has been cleaned and minimal feathers have been added (will likely add more soon). The Carnotaurus has a thicker tail and more fused fingers, and I don't believe the others are bad off. The Oviraptor already has been run through photoshop by me, and I think I fixed everything that was off. The Andesaurus is fine, see the skeletal and life restorations of it here. I'm not sure about the Giganotosaurus, will look into. The Siamosaurus might be accurate or not, someone really has to do a paper focusing on the hand anatomy of spinosaurids. IJReid ^discuss 04:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel the Giganotosaurus and Siamosaurus images are innapropriate due to lack of detail. I'm also not sure what pages they would be intended for, single clear images of the animals in question are better for an encyclopedia. The Teratophoneus and Carnotaurus both have the same problem of the feet pointing out too far laterally for some reason and the musclucature of the oviraptorosaur is strange. I am sorry if this comes across as being harsh, the criticism is intended as constructive. Tomopteryx (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not harsh at all, unless the original author comes across this discussion. I was just hoping that these images were salvageable. I was thinking the Sao Khua and Giga/Ande images could be used for their respective formations, to illustrate habitat and taxa. IJReid ^discuss 02:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for watching and correcting my drawings. Your critics are right and not harsh at all. I think that i will import new versions of the Sao Khua and Giga/Ande, which are not very good, in next days .(and excuse me for my bad english(I'm french)--78.226.215.72 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)),

Welcome, and feel free to add any more of your images here! IJReid ^discuss 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Offy's new upload, of a leaping Procompsognathus seems pretty good. I believe that the only thing that could be changed is the hyperextended leg, but it is hard to tell from this angle. IJReid ^discuss 23:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I've drawn a Cretaceous scene of Antarctic with Antarctopelta and Vegavis.

Unfortunately, those two species did not live together. Antarctopelta is Santonian, while Vegavis is latest Maastrichtian. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I have done some research on the ages of both animals. In the original paper discussing Antarcopelta, it is mentioned that the Santa Maria Formation it was found in, is of a Late Campanian age, about 74–70 mya. The paper on Vegavis also supplies an age, the ?Middle-Late Maastrichtian, ~66-68 mya. This means that they only lived a couple million years apart, and might have coexisted at the beginning and end of their existence. It is also possible that we could change the bird from representing Vegavis to a genus from the Late Campanian of South America, which was joined with Antarctica in the Campanian. IJReid ^discuss 16:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Very good pictures. And corrected the minor detail of fingers Shuvuuia. But I think it is better to add the fuzz to coelophysoids. is all.--Levi bernardo (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• It would appear the Stegosaurus tail spikes are incorrectly placed, per this recent discussion;: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/Archive_2014#Stegosaur FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't care much about the Stego. We already have two approved drawings, and this one is slightly crude in comparison to both. However, it might be modified to fit an unillustrated species or related genus, like S. sulcatus or ungulatus. IJReid ^discuss 03:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The stego and cerato might be worth saving, as it shows a rarely drawn interaction between the two genera, instead of allosaurus. The coelophysis is our first image showing the Kayenta environment, so might be worthwhile correcting. IJReid ^discuss 03:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Trouble is, most of the images depict animals we already have images of, but his Ouranosaurus actually looks better than the one we had already. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If I'm editing the Ouranosaurus, and also cleaning the bottom of some.--Levi bernardo (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

A Dilong just got uploaded, but it has some issues; it's arms are too short in proportion to the torso and it's tail is puny compared to the actual fossil. It's skull is also way too robust for the genus. I'm using Matthew Martyniuk's reconstruction as a basis for the anatomy of Dilong, of course. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Protofeathers probably couldn't be green either... But we do have an alright restoration of that animal already. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Ouranosaurus in the Sarcosuchus image seems to open its mouth just a bit too much? FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

New Juravenator

The current image of Juravenator has been bothering me for a while (awful slap-dash feather job, feathers on parts the fossil shows scales) so I've done a new one to replace it. I will probably make a Sciurumimus to accompany it as well, seeing as it's image is similarly poor. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Life reconstruction of the juvenile theropod Juravenator starki.

Sounds good to me! And yeah, in hindsight, the green should probably have been removed from the old image to make the "feathers" blend better... By the way, did you see this?[1] FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Image replaced on page. Sorry to shit all over the old edit if it was yours, but it didn't look great. Reply to the other issue on linked thread. Tomopteryx (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hahah, I did it out of necessity(the image would be remove otherwise), so there wasn't much work involved. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone just removed the old image of Sciurumimus as inaccurate, Tomopteryx, so a new image is missed... FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

FunkMonk, good, that thing was terrible. I'll add it to the list. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Spinosaurus Skull re-review

I have a day available to update some images, Here is what I plan to do with my Spinosaurus image [2]. I have rotated the head to be closer to how it probably would have been held most of the time. The neck will be changed to have the strong downward curve spinosaurs seem to have. What do people here think about the eye? Should I leave it as a slit or change it to a circle, what most birds have? Are people here ok with just scales or is it time for feathers or a bit of both? Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the slit eye is ok, it is a crocodile mimic after all. And by the way, the only slit-eyed bird is the skimmer, as far as I remember. And since you only show the head and neck, I don't think feathers are needed, many modern birds have naked heads and necks. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that head position... as Wedel, Taylor et. al have shown recently in their sauropod papers, almost all tetrapods habitually hold their neck base close to maximum retraction and distal neck/head at close to maximum extension. For Spinosaurus, that would translate to something like this: [3] Of course, there's no reason we HAVE to show it in neutral posture, but if that's what you're going for... Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

This is the current Version I'm working on, [4]. The reposition of the head and neck is more about making it look like a spinosaur. My comment was poorly worded, I wasn't trying to infer that I was going for neutral pose or living pose per say, I was more talking about the angle of the head. If you look at the original image the long axis of the head is exactly horizontal, a pose that it would rarely be in, and the neck shape looks more like a typical theropod. I'm a little skeptical of some aspects of the new spinosaurus reconstruction including some of the interpretations drawn from it but if you guys would prefer a living posture similar to what Andrea Cau has been posting then I can do that. This is very rough but I could do something like this, [5]. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me either way. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Parksosaurus, now with fuzz!

Here is an update to my Parksosaurus reconstruction. [6]. I started this update shortly after the description of Tianyulong and since Kulindadromeus I have modified it a bit. Should I just aim for Kulindadromeus with regards to skin details or is it OK in its current form? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I was kind of anticipating this! As for the fuzz, I'd expect quite a bit of variation even among close relatives, so I think you can do what you want, as long as it is within the range of the two extremes... But too bad with all the extreme scale detail of the old version being thrown out the window! FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The old scaly version is still there...it's just underneath the 'feathers'. The scales didn't take long to do they were mostly just cloned around. I rarely bother drawing an image all in one go, all my images are constructed of many layers. Because our understanding of dinosaurs keeps changing and what I find aesthetically pleasing might change I deliberately keep my images very modular. I construct my images like computer graphics are composited with layers of colour, highlights, shading, detail, texture etc. I don't see much point in drawing something finely detailed on say a canvas or paper only to find out sometime later that some part is wrong. If any detail is wrong I can easily swap it out. [7] Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, cool, because I was always of the impression that your images were the hardest to modify due to the sheer detail, but seems you've found a workaround! FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Amazing. I'd say, give it a go! IJReid ^discuss 00:19, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• On this note, Steveoc 86, have you considered feathering your Tarbosaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have an update to my Tarbosaurus underway, here is its current incarnation. [8] I'm still debating a few things. In its current state there is a grey silhouette of an adult, which now looks odd to me, but for some reason just the sub-adult on it's own seems odd. I've stated to flesh the grey one out and I thought about adding in a smaller juvenile to the image.[9]. The problem is that I don't know of a published reconstruction of the juvenile all I used were images of this specimen [10] and compared it to skeletals of young tyrannosaurs. The adult is based primarily on GSP's skeletal of the holotype in his field guide. Shortly after starting this was around the time he complained on the DML about people using his skeletals. For years he's been using them as scientific reference/data then all of a sudden they are art etc?? Anyway, My version does differ in the interpretation of the muscle outline, the head is based on a more detailed reconstruction of the holotype skull and I added an extra dorsal vertebra to the skeletal; for some reason it 'seems' to have one less dorsal then every other tyrannosaur skeletal he has ever done. Although now I'm not completely certain of this as a lot of the later dorsals are illustrated as fused with the sacrum. Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problems, but I like the one with all three, though it's kind of sad that they overlap each other so much, which makes the two large ones kind of hard to see. Could they be placed on line or something? Perhaps the juvenile could be partially based on a Raptorex skeletal... FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Something like this: [11] Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Gives it a better feeling of a progression/series. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've uploaded a feathered version of my Tarbosaurus but I've kept it with the grey one behind for the time being. At some point I will upload a version with them in a line, once I finish the other two specimens. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool! FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Siats

Quite furry[12], since we have very few large non-tyrannosaur theropods drawn with feathers. Will be cleaned up and coloured when "approved". FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems good, but the toes seem somewhat thick[13][14]. And Claw first finger is somewhat small. The skull is very good.--Levi bernardo (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Alright, will try to fix that. Also remember, the animal is known from almost nothing:[15] FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

whether, if I had seen these fossils, thanks. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Might the feathers be too long? FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those feathers are very long for a carnosaur Levi bernardo (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with the long feathers... it resembles to a ratite bird. --Rextron (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

yes, but distorts the fossil record --Levi bernardo (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, little to nothing is known about the integument of its relatives... FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I thougth in the supposed quills in the limbs of Concavenator, that is a carnosaur. If are certainly a kind of protofeathers, is possible speculate that the body was covered with relatively long protofeathers. --Rextron (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to Siats take protofeathers as Concavenator, long but not quite. And when I referred to the fossil record, I referred to the same Siats. --Levi bernardo (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the issues and gave it some colour, more issues? FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good for me.--Rextron (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Saturnalia

Saturnalia (dinosaur).

Hello, I come to see that corrections are needed to Saturnalia. Since I made the corrections that Rextron said. --Levi bernardo (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the most important corrections would be to the hands and feet, the hallux should be pointing forwards instead of backwards, and the hands have too many and too long claws (only the thumb to middle finger, and the index finger should have the longest). Other than that, it seems acceptable. IJReid ^discuss 14:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh and the eye shouldn't be white. IJReid ^discuss 14:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I will do the hallux, but you mentioned the index finger, I think you screwed look at this [16] [17]. The rest I will do thanks. Levi bernardo (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yah, the finger is the right length, but the claws are too long, as well as the second finger itself. The claws on the second and third finger should only be half as long, and the second finger should be a small bit shorter. IJReid ^discuss 23:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've made the corrections of the hands, feet, eyes and more. And cleanse the image when the review is completed [18]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. IJReid ^discuss 02:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The right leg looks kind of straight? FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

if I'm trying to look good leg. thanks for the reminder --Levi bernardo (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• and corrected all the details requested.--Levi bernardo (talk) 12:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Abrosaurus

Abrosaurus

Hello. I corrected my Abrosaurus a year ago [19]. (IJReid even so thanks for the correction) and also arevisar the new version of the skull [20]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that new head looks great! I wouldn't hesitate to say that is acceptable. Much better than the older version. IJReid ^discuss 00:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The new whole body drawing looks better too, although the head might be a little too tall. Also, the background should be cleaned. IJReid ^discuss 00:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is already corrected the skull [21], something else. --Levi bernardo (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but there might be a foot order issue, you should take a look at the supplemental info of this paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982208016333 FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I already made that correction of the feet, the lines are just to denote [22].--Levi bernardo (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Woah, fantastic head! Two thumbs up. IJReid ^discuss 05:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur, one of your best works I've seen so far! FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Acristavus

Illustration

Just a quick graphite sketch of Acristavus, only showing the neck and head. Any comments? IJReid ^discuss 16:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, I will complete requests for illustrations of dinosaurs known from more than a single bone or only teeth. IJReid ^discuss 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks great but you have to make clear the musculature of Jugal-surangular. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Corrected, How is it now? IJReid ^discuss 23:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well. But it would be nice if the lines of the muscles were less thick and more clear. --Levi bernardo (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The ridge just behind the nasal opening should probably be less obvious; there were probably muscles in that area to control the opening and closing of the nose, so having it flat seems like the animal would be unable to close up the nose if it had to. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this, how is it. IJReid ^discuss 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the border of the maxilla is visible for some reason? Probably wouldn't be in life. Probably also a bit too heavy with jugal demarcation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it. I think I understood what you were saying. IJReid ^discuss 23:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Much better! FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Bonitasaura, Chebsaurus

illustration

illustration

More quick sketches, these of Bonitasaura and Chebsaurus. I found it hard to complete the Chebsaurus because of the lack of any good references, so I found a skull of another Eusauropod and added the elements known to it, other than the braincase. If anyone would like, I can post a link to it from here so it can be compared. IJReid ^discuss 15:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems the bottom one lacks an ear? The eyes are perhaps twice too big, sauropods had tiny sclerotic rings (inner diameter even smaller, which is the part that would be visible).[23] FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Bonitasaura seems to me that has the skull pronounced forward, look at this [24] --Levi bernardo (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Added the ear. To FunkMonk, the eyes are actually about the proper size, see Levi's layover of the Bonitasaura. More derived genera seem to develop smaller eyes. Also, the Chebsaurus is a juvenile, so eyes are expected to be a bit proportionately large. To Levi bernardo, I do not think enough of the skull is known to rule out a pronounced forehead, anyways, if you rotate or shift the skull slightly it tends to fit. IJReid ^discuss 22:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

As far as I see, there's no sclerotic ring in the overlay? The size of the eyesocket itself doesn't tell anything about the size of the eyeball, or how much of it would be visible in life (good example[25]), only the sclerotic ring does. I'd try to find photos of relatives with preserved sclerotic rings, and of the same age group. Closest I could think of is Nemegtosaurus.[26] FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How is the eye now, I updated it by hand because my computer can't use photoshop right now so I'm taking changes through GIMP. IJReid ^discuss 23:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to me! See also this restoration of Abydosaurus[27], which gives it very small eyes, in spite of the giant orbits.[28] Which is funny, since I wa skind of annoyed by the gigantic eyes the artist (Skrepnick) gave Caudipteryx many years back[29], guess he learned... FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Return and Brontosaurus

Hey guys, sorry I haven't been around much, been busy as Uni has started. Just wanted to reserve the position of life restoration for Brontosaurus seeing as that is a thing now. I'll have some WIP's to post soon. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. In theory, it could had been done before, as it was always a valid species, but no one seems to have done it... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it would be, but people's obsession with illustrating the holotype species of each genus seems to have won out. Not that I buck that trend here, this is B. excelsus. And here is where I left it for the day: http://s18.postimg.org/iv4l9kv3c/Brontosaurus_WIP2.jpg Ignore the hair in the corner, and the scanner-chopped mouth. Still very early in development, it will get a lot better. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, somewhat unusual to see it drawn with this hind leg posture I guess, but others probably have a more qualified opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 10:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The legs of sauropods were basically columnar and I doubt the knee would flex that much during walking, but maybe a question for the SV-POW guys? Also, I asked the artist of the illustration here [30] if it would be possible to use on Wiki (right now it is under a pesky NC license). He had no clue about the license and is looking into it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Geez, it feels so weird to be seeing somebody say Brontosaurus and not immediately saying "It's Apatosaurus now, not Brontosaurus. It's like we've rewound time to the 1930's. :p Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the input guys, I should have posted the lineart here before I started the full piece, those I ran it by didn't pick this up. Does the thigh flexation look okay? If it is just the knee, it should be a reletively painless fix. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the thigh looks ok. The other thing though is that I doubt they'd really "run" with two feet off the ground... I think it's more conservative to show only one foot off the ground at a time. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Only one foot is supposed to be off the ground (both forelimbs are supposed to be down). I'll add some ground or something to make that more obvious. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

So the editing turned out to be more of a pain than expected, and I wasn't happy with some other elements, so I'm redoing the physical version completely. Before I get started on that, how is this for the posture and proportions? http://s22.postimg.org/520ri1lsv/Brontosaurus_WIP2.png Tomopteryx (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks more natural to me, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As I have an Animal Diversity mid-term on Tuesday, this has been a bit slow going, but here is a little proof of progress update to show I'm still working on it. http://s21.postimg.org/zdheae0dh/img054.jpg Tomopteryx (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, I've made some room for it under description... FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Image is complete and up on page. If you have any concerns, let me know. Tomopteryx (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reconstruction of Brontosaurus excelsus.

Looks good, I have a single "concern". The flap of skin connecting the knee to the body seems to attach a bit too far along the front the body? When the leg is lifted that high, I'd expect the skin flap to be "collapsed" or stretched forwards, I've drawn what I mean here: http://imgur.com/okWpgjR FunkMonk (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Tomopteryx (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Much better. The hindleg that touches the ground seems a bit more massive than the lifted one, is it because the pad is "squeezed" more or something like that? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The legs seem very skinny to me, I'd expect them to be much more of an undefined column rising and expanding up from the foot, without theropod-like visible calf muscles etc. It seems very odd that the forelimbs are more robust than the hind limbs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Funk, yes the fleshy pad on the planted hindlimb is "flattened out" due to the angle of the leg and the weight pressing down on it. Matt, thanks for the advice, do you mind drawing a redline on the image so I can see how you think it should be? Once you've done that, I'll go in and edit it to match. This is only my second serious attempt at a sauropod and the first of a while so there was always going to be a bit of a learning curve. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I may not have a chance to do the redline for a bit, but in the mean time the legs on this model look about right to me (though see discussion on inaccurate hip): [31] Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

This quote from the same article also might be relevant: "In a way that is difficult to describe in words, the feet really look they are bearing a lot of weight, and this impression of solidity helps to ground the whole maquette. It doesn’t look like a sauropod-shaped balloon that just happens to be poling itself along with limbs that barely touch the ground" Maybe it's because there's no visible ground in your image, but I get an impression of lightness and gracility from the stance (maybe also because the feet are all so close together?). Despite the numerous air sacs, these things were gargantuan, and to lift up one foot would require a solid, columnar, probably more spread out stance from the other three limbs. It might be the contours of the back hind limb, but it almost looks like the shaded limb is pushing off while the foreground hind limb is being lifted, like it's getting ready to run, which would be biologically unimaginable. One other thing that gives the hind limbs a theropodan quality is the bent knees. Most dinosaurs couldn't extend the knee very far, with the exception of sauropods, whose hind legs were near vertical columns that probably couldn't bend at the knee very much. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you see Dinoguy's suggestions, Tomopteryx? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't! Thank you for directing my attention. I will get this sorted when I can :) Tomopteryx (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Dromaeosaurus

The image to be reviewed

Are there any problems with the proportions of this (low detail) restoration? Particularly the wing shape and placement, the length of legs, and the tail length? Editor abcdef (talk) 09:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The skull seems very pointy and low, and the legs straight. Tail also seems too short. The neck seems too long. Was there anything wrong with the old one?[32] (Perhaps too ostrich like wings, too large eye) If so, it can be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I have this old one if we really want to replace it http://tomozaurus.deviantart.com/art/Dromaeosaurus-albertensis-274986361 It is not up to standard with my current work, but it should suffice. For the old one, the wing is really wierd and I'm not sure the feather colour is very plausible. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems the nostril is a bit far back. Does it have an ear opening? FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Moved the nostril and made the ear opening (which was there) a bit more obvious. http://s2.postimg.org/jl5ug6gnt/Dromaeosaurus2015edit.png Tomopteryx (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleaned up mine in photoshop. Should be ready to go. http://s23.postimg.org/f7sx4owmz/Dromaeosaurus_2015.png Tomopteryx (talk) 05:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if you add some colour to the feathers. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Are the toes/feet maybe a bit large?[33] Lack of colour shouldn't be an issue. FunkMonk (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That is a heavily reconstructed skeleton, as are all mounts of Dromaeosaurus. Very little of the foot is actually known from the animal. The proportions of my reconstruction are based on Utahraptor and Achillobator. Tomopteryx (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering how close D. is to Utahraptor, should it have procumbent teeth? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

You know we have an almost complete skull for Dromaeosaurus, right? You should, considering that is essentially all it is known from. Tomopteryx (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Crap, was having a brain fart and was thinking of Yurgovuuchia. My bad. :p Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added the image in it's current form to the page. If Matt or someone else of knowledge thinks the foot size should change, then I will go in and change it. Until then it will stay as is. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Feathered tyrannosaurs?

We're now at a place where we have replaced many of our old tyrannosaur restorations with new ones that show feathers, so I was wondering what people think about non-feathered restorations, and the degree of feathering. Should non-feathered restorations be considered inaccurate, or should we wait until there is definite proof of their presence in various genera? And does it matter if they only have few feathers? Take the examples below. First, we have a fully feathered Daspletosaurus. Then a naked, but nice looking, Albertosaurus model. Third, there's a Tarbosaurus with a fringe of feathers on the back. My own view on this is explained in this discussion:[34] FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Fully feathered Daspletosaurus
• 
  Naked Albertosaurus.
• 
  Sparsely feathered Tarbosaurus
• 
  Naked Tyrannosaurus head, should be within the probable, considering the many extant birds with naked heads and necks
• 
  Tyrannosaurus with a kind of mixed covering of feathers and skin

Personally, I think an elephantine sparse fuzz should be the bare minimum, though the case could be made that some restorations are drawn in a style or framed in such a way that such fuzz would not need to be illustrated (as with pictures of elephants). Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; the majority of evidence is leaning towards tyrannosaurids having at least sparse feathering (though I honestly don't think that a Yutyrannus-like coat would be too out of plausibility), so that should be the base we go with. We might get further evidence to such a conclusion whenever Sereno gets around to describing the T.rex fossil he says looks like plucked chicken (which would mean either naked skin or feathers). Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, naked or reticulated animals should be considered acceptable barring further evidence. It is when we get into large "scales", scutes, osteoderms, spikes, etc. is where the line should be drawn due to the morphology of the impressions we do have (tubercles of extremely small size, 1-3mm). Probably not even an issue though, as I can't recall seeing any reconstructions like this on Wikipedia. Tomopteryx (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Images should only be removed if specimens assigned to them or maybe their closest relative specifically show the integument on a certain region contradicting life restorations. IJReid ^discuss 18:09, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• On this note, the sparse feathers on the "T. rex autopsy" model look pretty good:[35] FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

In the case of Tyrannosaurus itself, I would hazard that basing it's integument on other related species from similar climates would be the most logical option to go with, since it's as close as possible. Yutyrannus lived in a similar climate to Tyrannosaurus (subtropical and humid); though the presence of crocodylians in Hell Creek suggests that it was, on average, a little warmer than the Yixian. That likely doesn't mean too much in terms of integument, though. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Chilesaurus

Chilesaurus

Chilesaurus jaw.

Hello here I have a picture of Chilesaurus, purged the image when finished reviewing. [36] --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Unlike the official reconstructions, its position indicates it probably had feathers... FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ok, something else ?. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems a bit robust compared to the skeletal outline, but that should be fixed automatically once feathers are added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

here is the updated image [37] --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks better, maybe still a bit robust, but maybe others have something to say. By the way, it's as if someone just wanted to outdo the weirdness of Chilesaurus, what the fudge is this!? http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/fluffy-little-dinosaur-had-bat-wings-180955122/?no-ist FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

haha, some are very envious. Skinnier [38]. What about the image of Danny we could upgrade? --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree skinnier is better, the robust version looks less shrink-wrapped (though it shouldn't be both robust AND have a visible shoulder blade). Both versions seem to have human like leg muscles instead of bird-like drumsticks. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And I plan to draw Yi qi (dinosaur) ASAP ;) All the press release pics are atrocious. I'll also have to revise my Scansoriopteryx pics... Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was mainly thinking it was the limbs that seemed too robust. As for Yi qi, and the recent discussions about genus articles, is there any reason why other monotypic genera do not have the full binomial as the article names? FunkMonk (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

No reason, in fact I was specifically trying it out here to kind of see how it would play... too unwieldy to have longer specific names as articles or...? Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Stuff like Micropachycephalosaurus hongtuyanensis may look a bit weird, but on the other hand, so does Yi (dinosaur)... Would be nice with a standard, though. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a lineart/size chart illustration of Chilesaurus half-done. I could finish that off today no problem if we want it. Tomopteryx (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for a size chart for it. IJReid ^discuss 03:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I produced for my own use: http://tomozaurus.deviantart.com/art/Chilesaurus-530059536 I can produce a version without the grid for Wikipedia like I did for Alectrosaurus or a version compared to a human, but that will considerably shrink the animal. I was going to base it on the largest specimen which is supposed to be 3.2m long (the final version is based on the holotype) but there is no data on any of the skeletal dimentions for that specimen in the paper or the supplements. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Like the one above, any reason why it doesn't have feathers? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

With these lineart size chart things, the intention is to show off the most basic anatomy, so if an animal is from a clade with no known integument, I usually draw them without integument. In this case I did base the tail and podotheca on Concavenator but left the rest of the body free of integument. If we really think feathers are more parsimonious (isn't it more like a 50/50?) I can whip up a feathered version. Tomopteryx (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As above, don't necessarily take my word for it, let's see what other say... These days, I'd personally draw all theropods with some amount of feathers, as it'll be a pain to fix once/if a new group is shown to have them, which happens so frequently now anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• The image of Tom sounds good, and I also support FunkMonk also seems that the ear is a little big. And hereand this my image as corrected with said Matt [39].--Levi bernardo (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

now here image with updates, plus other --Levi bernardo (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

How do we feel about this?

Chilesaurus diagram by Tom Parker.

Tomopteryx (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I think good. What about the other two illustrations we have, strangely both from deviantart also. IJReid ^discuss 13:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

very good image, but it would be better if he had taken the recommendations --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the other one son Commons seem to have proportion issues. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yi scale

Size of the type specimen compared with a human.

I already added this to the article since it's sorely lacking images, but are there any issues that need to be fixed? Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking good. IJReid ^discuss 17:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, cool, kind of like a modified Batman logo! FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Theropods

• 
  Dracovenator
• 
  Achillesaurus
• 
  Hagryphus

Sorry review these 3 images so far, comments --Levi bernardo (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Draco and Achille look very fine. However, the Hagryphus should have wings on its second finger, and its eye may be too large. IJReid ^discuss 23:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Do we really need full-body life reconstructions for animals known from next-to-no material, like Hagryphus? Tomopteryx (talk) 10:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That was the last image of the whole body I've done, there will never be more --Levi bernardo (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

But if you want, I could cut it so that it was nothing but bust and arms --Levi bernardo (talk) 18:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The feet looks quite lumpy, not the long slender feet of theropods. And JReid is right about the missing wings and large eye. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• corrected --Levi bernardo (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Where did the body go? As for wings, I'd expect something more like this: [40] Even primitive oviraptorosaurs like Caudipteryx had wings, so this likely had too. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

ready --Levi bernardo (talk) 15:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Requests for images

Just something I'm doing for my free time. Until the end of this month I will be taking requests of which dinosaurs I should draw, and I will complete 30. If anyone has any votes, feel free to post them here, at my blog or my deviantart page. IJReid ^discuss 01:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Heh, anything without an image would do, I guess. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Any specifics? I'll be doing Lapampasaurus for sure, as I have never heard of it before and it is fairly well-known. IJReid ^discuss 23:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

How about Dreadnoughtus? Pretty long article and "famous" animal, but no restoration. I'd also like to see an up to date restoration of Procompsognathus... Hypsilophodon could also need some love, perhaps updating this[41] image? Could need fuzz and a de-pronated hand. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Stokesosaurus needs a reconstruction image; right now it only has pictures of the fossils and a size chart; none of which show the full animal as it might have been. We should probably fix that. :p Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 16:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would really like to do Stokesosaurus but I have Brontosaurus and Ornithomimus on my plate before then, so if someone else wants to do it, go ahead. Tomopteryx (talk) 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I could do a quick recon which would be easily replaced if/when you get to it. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• I went ahead and fixed the Hypsilophodon[42], by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Kayentavenator

• So my first illustration (Kayentavenator) is up and scanned, you can see it here. Any comments? IJReid ^discuss 21:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

very good job, but they lacks shadows, and the fourth finger is not seen --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The leg behind seems a bit more robust than the one in front? FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

if you also seem somewhat thick legs. --Levi bernardo (talk) 15:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ive added the shadowing and thinned the leg. IJReid ^discuss 04:39, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems better, fine. --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator.

• I've got more images done, [43] and [44]. The former is Ichthyovenator as a relative of Concavenator as proposed by Mortimer, and the latter is a generic sauropod. IJReid ^discuss 15:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Where are the eyes and mouth of the sauropod? FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The Ichthyovenator is very good, but not seen her ear and the skull should be denoted more. And sauropod has very thick legs, and tail ends very thick.--Levi bernardo (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

and I dont know not if the sauropod has very short neck.--Levi bernardo (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, the sauropod is facing away, and has a "(" shaped curve in top view. I would recommend the sauropod is used for a generic titanosaur with no known skull material (sans teeth). IJReid ^discuss 04:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• A bit late in the game here, but basing Ichthyovenator on an unpublished hypothesis seems a bit too speculative. We need to follow the published, peer-reviewed literature. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Besides the speculative recreation of Ichthyovenator has very flat feet should keep as the of pads of Concavenator.--Levi bernardo (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured Deinonychus image

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, but apparently the uploader of this image doesn't take kindly to having an innaccuracy tag placed on it. Perhaps I'm halucinating, but are those hands pronated or not? And is such an elevation of the hind limb even possible? CheersMariomassone (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he has reverted me adding the tag on a Microraptor image as well. The hands are pronated, so it is a problem there. Perhaps ping him here? FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Could try, but the uploader is frustratingly uncommunicative. Mariomassone (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hi. Ok, I'm always afraid of having to deal with pranksters especially as you are not listed on COMMONS. Give me the arguments for the front legs, with the publication that goes with it. If you're right, the model will be corrected in the coming weeks and the image will be redone.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Here you go for hand posture (there should be other papers as well): http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03043773 and http://www.jstor.org/stable/4524641?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The knee of dinosaurs couldn't (and can't) straighten nearly that much either. don't have time now to dig up sources but Scott Hartman has a lot of info online with links to the literature. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• Perfect ;I found the documents. The model will be corrected. Thank you for your cooperation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
• Looking at some other skeletals, I think the sclerotic ring may be a little large on it; the FMNH mount has pretty small sclerotic rings. The frontmost foot is also bent too far downwards at the toes, as well; it shouldn't be a sharp 90-degree turn, but a curve like in the FMNH mount (since as it is, it looks like the mount's toes are broken). Other then that (and the pronation, which is already being addressed), this is pretty good. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the sclerotic ring is known from this animal, so any reconstruction is hypothetical. All mounted skeletons have slightly outdated skull proportions anyway, no complete skulls are known, but newer restorations give it a skull shape not shown in any mounts. FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, so if anything the mounts themselves are inaccurate...would that mean we have to label them as "Skeletal restoration of D.antirrhopus with outdated skull"? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a pretty minor problem, especially since we can't know for sure how the skull was actually shaped when it is so incompletely known, apparently. It's not like Velociraptor, where several complete skulls are known, a wrong shape would be unforgivable. This seems to be the most up to date skull shape, though no mounts have it: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YrzqMXdJX8I/T-h-anKOEoI/AAAAAAAALnY/o_MTDI7Rbak/s1600/Deinonychus+skeletal.png As you can see, the sclerotic ring is restored pretty big. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Stokesosaurus reconstruction

I've finished my reconstruction of Stokesosaurus, which I have depicted predating on a young Allosaurus. I'm not sure if the biome is right (the green is undetailed ferns, since grass wasn't quite a thing at this point). If anybody has any critiques on the art, that would be appreciated; I'm not all that amazing at detailing. :p Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that a pretty small Allosaurus then? FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm intending it to be a pretty young juvenile; definitely not over a year. Basically, the equivalent of a baby to us. :p Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• I made some corrections to the picture, but missing, look at this skeleton, [45] well I recommend use a vector program to make images, such as GIMP [46] or Inkscape. [47] --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it should be a bit more obvious that the Allosaurus is supposed to be a juvenile. An individual consistent with the depicted would have a more gracile snout, more tapered torso and longer tail (see here). As it’s currently shown it looks more like an adult, except for the thin neck. --Ornitholestes (talk) 00:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've edited the image accordingly, but I'm not sure if I've got it quite right; feel free to point out those little issues if need be. Raptormimus456 (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Imagery

In the last month I've been updating my old pictures and making some new versions. I further understand that Epanterias is a dubious genre, comments. --Levi bernardo (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Trinisaura
• 
  Epanterias

• Looks good, but I think the body of Trinisaura is perhaps too short, and the legs below the knee a bit too robust. The part of the leg below the ankle would have little to no muscles, so it would pretty much just wrap thinly around the bones. The feet seem a bit short and lumpy. Also, compare with this silhouette:[48] FunkMonk (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
  • The Epanterias looks decent enough, no glaring faults in it (though you may want to give it a fleshy pad under the foot, unless that's a tyrannosaur-specific feature). The Trinisaura looks a little bare on the fuzz side, though; I would recommend basing the integument on Kulindadromeus, since that's one of the best clues we may have as to ornithschian integument. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, already set Epanterias feet, and here's a WIP Trinisaura [49], I made him a little longer tail and attach the head, I'll add more fuzz, so do not be cold, and improves feet. Any comments? --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks good, but I'm not sure about the feet. IJReid ^discuss 17:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• It is ready. --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Qianzhousaurus

Here's a sketchy drawing[50], based on this skeletal:[51] FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It is good, but the grip of the right foot, seem crushed. --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean flat? FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the feet seem a bit flat; tyrannosaurids (or at least tyrannosaurines) seem to have had fleshy pads under their feet, from what I've heard. So maybe you should make the bottom of the feet thicker. Other than that, it seems pretty solid. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 20:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

if the right foot claws are somewhat flat. --Levi bernardo (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Better?[52] The pads were already there (though they should be clearer now), all dinosaurs had them, not just tyrannosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 07:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

if much better, perfect --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's with colour. You could argue that tiger stripes evolved for camouflage in tall grass or something, therefore making it inappropriate here, but so many different animals from different groups are striped, that it probably wouldn't be too far out some theropods had them too... I recall Gregory Paul's Metriacanthosaurus[53], for example. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent work, good coloring, if I believe that some dinosaurs have had a coloring striped as a tiger something like Sinosauropteryx. --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Nice job, Funk. I think this is good enough to go into the article, myself. User:Raptormimus456 (talk) 18:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. IJReid ^discuss 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

New dinosaurs

Huanansaurus.

Hey guys, I come to revise this WIP Huanansaurus [54] is my first fully digital recreation. Comments ?. Later I bring a WIP Sefapanosaurus. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Style looks good, but it seems you've drawn the beak and crest only the same length as the bone, it would had been even longer due to the keratin covering. See for example this article:[55] FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

True, I had forgotten to put keratin, thanks. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps give it a neck as well? Will look more interesting then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

if he was thinking about it. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Lepidus praecisio

• Hello I come to revise this image Lepidus. After I have ready the Sefapanosaurus and Huanansaurus. --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't have the crest. Apparently the one of M. kayentakatae was displaced nasal bones, and Lepidus is closer to Coelophysis than M. kayentakatae. IJReid ^discuss 14:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, also, seems the eye is a bit low in the orbit?[56] FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hello here is the image of Huanansaurus, corrected [57]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I made some updates to Lepidus, put the eye above, the ridge improves, add more protofeathers, and fix foot. The crest leave it as a transition between C. kayentakatae and C. Bauri. --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've included it, but still, the crest on C. kayentakatae is supposedly just nasal bones that were displaced during burial, and thus there was no crest. IJReid ^discuss 17:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

ready. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking good. IJReid ^discuss 14:24, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

More images

I Have come across some illustrations by a new user on commons, which should probably be reviewed here. IJReid ^discuss 21:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the user who drew these pictures and I hope that other users will like them. Don't hesitate to ask me other illustrations if some are missing in artcles.--Foolp (talk) 11:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Streptospondylus
• 
  Gobisaurus
• 
  Buitreraptor
• 
  Yangchuanosaurus and Tuojiangosaurus

Mostly look anatomically correct, but the Buitreraptor's sickle claws aren't curved enough and it needs a propatagium. The left hind leg of the Gobisaurus seems bigger than the right one. And the Tuojiangosaurus should probably have paired back plates. FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've get a propatagium to the Buitrerapor and correct the hind leg of Gobisaurus. For the Tuojiangosaurus, I based my reconstruction on Gregory S. Paul's reconstruction (2010) which presents the plates like that.--Foolp (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

They are very good images, but has not clearly defined the clutches of the arms, Gobisaurus, Streptospondylus and Yangchuanosaurus. and Buitreraptor missing muscles in the jaw, neck and tail. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Foolp, what image is the background of the Yangchuanosaurus/Tuoijiangosaurus image from? Also, I believe that all of the images are fine apart from the Buitreraptor, which should have a thicker jaw and neck and the eye should be a little higher. IJReid ^discuss 22:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The background of Yangchuanosaurus is "Ciel-leman2.jpg" of Wikimedia. Like the Tuojiangosauarus, the "Buitreraptor" is based on Paul's reconstruction of 2010 so I thought it was right. Are there some new dicoveries about that dinosaur from 2010 ?--Foolp (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Paul's reconstructions aren't the most accurate, and to make it better I would just add a little more muscle around the base of the jaw and neck. I cannot tell for the Tuojiangosaurus, but I think Paul restored it so that only one row of the plates were visible, even though there were two parallel rows. I believe that for Buitreraptor the skeletal we have on Wikimedia is more accurate than Paul's. IJReid ^discuss 15:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

For the Tuojiangosaurus I confirm that they are the two rows of plates on my draw. I'm surprised that Wikipedia's reconstructions are better than Paul's, who is internationally recognized, but it's great ! I've corrected the Buitreraptor, it's OK ?--Foolp (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

now it looks great if the Buitreraptor, and all other --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you ! So I can insert them into articles ?--Foolp (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

yeah. --Levi bernardo (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, seems to of my points weren't addressed? The curvature of the dromaeosaur's sickle claws, and the legs of the ankylosaur, in my first comment. FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry ! For the leg of ankylosaur it's corrected but I don't understand for the claws of Buitreraptor. What must change exactly?--Foolp (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Compare: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Buitreraptor_gonzalezorum.jpg FunkMonk (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Prenocephale

Hello, I've drew a reconstitution of Prenocephale because I've seen that they are not accurate pictures of that dinosaur. Is it good ?--Foolp (talk) 18:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

if very well, I want to only offer an observation, the hind leg is too fat. --Levi bernardo (talk) 00:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

They might be lacking jaw muscles? There should usually not be a "dent" at the back of the jaw in life, as it would had been covered with muscles. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I added muscles to jaws, removed the jaw's "dent" and refined the back legs. Good ?--Foolp (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

if it is okay. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps an ear opening is needed? It would be placed somewhere where the "dent" was. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I added ears opening. So it's OK to get the draw on articles ?--Foolp (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah!--Levi bernardo (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, Thanks !--Foolp (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is for the most part pretty good, but I have just a couple of little nitpicks. Firstly, you shouldn't be able to see the "groove" of the sides of the legs all the way up to the top of the body. They would fade into the caudofemoral and thoracic musculature by the time you reached the pelvis. Additionally, the metatarsals and feet are too thin here, some accounting for the tendons is required as is the addition of foot-pads. The forelimbs are also a bit thin, there is almost no muscle on there. I've drawn you a little redline: http://s28.postimg.org/699nov6jv/Prenocephale_redline.png Hope this helps :) Tomopteryx (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Preno is corrected--Foolp (talk) 10:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The corrected version looks good except you only applied it to the animal on the left. I didn't redline the other one, but it requires the same changes. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Rearing Kentrosaurus

Here is the asked reconstruction of rearing Kentrosaurus. Any problems or errors ?--Foolp (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool, I'm sure LittleJerry and HMallison would want to have a look. I think it should probably support itself by having its tail on the ground? FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Its uncertain whether it used its tail to support itself. LittleJerry (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

So I correct the tail or it's OK ?--Foolp (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

OK--Foolp (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Quick comment, Scott Hartman has made a skeletal of Kentrosaurus, here. And HMallison has added comments that should be read as well. IJReid ^discuss 14:24, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Summer project

• 
  Gorgosaurus libratus
• 
  Tehuelchesaurus

Hello everyone. This summer I'm doing a project to illustrate 21 dinosaurs, especially sauropods. But start with this recreation the subadult specimen (TMP 91.36.500) of Gorgosaurus libratus, and later I will have an illustration of an adult. Any coments. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, we could use a restoration of a feathered adult Gorgosaurus. What are the other genera you want to draw? Always good if some of them could be genera we don't have illustrations of already-.... FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

An adult with more feathers ?, if it's okay, I will put more feathers. And the list of other genres that I drawing you are here it is [58]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Just with any amount, the previous image didn't have any. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

But the other does not convince me, has nothing of feathers, feet are somewhat rare, the horns are above the eyes and the nose is too big. --Levi bernardo (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean your new adult will probably be better than the old one. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope so. --Levi bernardo (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hello here is the recreation of Tehuelchesaurus [59], still lacks details. Later I bring the Sauroposeidon and Pelorosaurus.--Levi bernardo (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The front legs of the sauropod look quite thin? How's it going with the adult Gorgosaurus? I've temporarily added the juvenile to the description section, until the adult one is done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I just noticed the error, correct it. The adult Gorgosaurus I carry a 20% complete, when I show more advanced. --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed foot and neck [60].--Levi bernardo (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur drawing

Cetiosauriscus

Manidens

Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus

Jeholosaurus

Nqwebasaurus

Sciurumimus

Aviatyrannis

Wow, I am very impressed at how many pieces are being contributed by our new paleoartist Foolp as well as relatively older member Levi. Now for me to try and catch up with a summer of art. First off is one of Manidens [61]. This is a very quick sketch that I made with no internet access, so there might be proportional issues, but based on the known skull of manidens I think I may have gotten this done quite well. More scanned and on the way. IJReid ^discuss 04:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed a stupid error on my part, but have yet to post it. The upper canine is now on the lower jaw. IJReid ^discuss 04:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Another, scanned and online. Cetiosauriscus [62]. Like above, probably proportional issues. IJReid ^discuss 04:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet another. This time is another whale lizard, Cetiosaurus and Megalosaurus, [63]. This is quite old, and if I asked mike taylor to review it the first thing would be the neck thickness. But I think it may be worth using, especially considering the only restoration we have in the article is quite queer if not inaccurate. IJReid ^discuss 04:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool, first thing, the Manidens should certainly have some sort of fuzz, like Tianyulong. FunkMonk (talk) 11:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fuzzier now. IJReid ^discuss 14:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

One more drawing that I did, Jeholosaurus [64]. I'm not totally sure about how accurate the pose is, but the tail would have articulated and it would not be off balance. IJReid ^discuss 14:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Manidens looks great, but if need fuzz, and also has the very big eye. The Cetiosauriscus this well, alone lacks the ear. The Megalosaurus and Cetiosaurus and look good, but it would be nice to make these corrections that you mentioned, and also the Megalosaurus seems to have 4 fingers. And Jeholosaurus seems to have very short tail. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

All are now fixed. IJReid ^discuss 15:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

wow your pictures are great and impressive, for me are ready, to Jeholosaurus exception, of the fingers should be more so [65]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, and all are now uploaded. IJReid ^discuss 01:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Cool!. --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Another drawing, Nqwebasaurus [66]. I tried to make it as "primitive ornithomimosaur esque" as I could, and I think this isn't too bad. IJReid ^discuss 13:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yet more that we need, Sciurumimus [67]. The head took a long time to draw "correctly?", and I originally drew a wing on its arm, but otherwise this seems to me to be better than our old one. IJReid ^discuss 13:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there any requests for articles that need an illustration, and/or any comments relating to the above before I upload them? IJReid ^discuss 04:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this summer is putting great. Well the Nqwebasaurus looks good, but should define more the wings, and legs should be so [68]. And Sciurumimus if it looks better than before, but should have more feathers, and feet should be more fat, and the line of the mouth should be longer almost to below the eye, and of the skull should be outlined his border neck, and this one recommendation [69]. And I recommend these articles without illustration. Dinheirosaurus, Daemonosaurus, Variraptor. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Heres one more drawing, Eotyrannus [70]. I forgot to add it with nqweba and scour, so here it is now. IJReid ^discuss 14:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems the fingers lack musculature? Part of the unguals closest to the finger would be covered in flesh. The feet also seem a bit thin, compared to ground bird feet. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't think I'm gonna update the drawing above. I'll probably just make a new one from scratch. Also, I think I'll try and illustrate every tyrannosauroid that we lack an illustration of. IJReid ^discuss 14:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The toes in the current version also look way too short and stout, almost like it has hooves. This also makes he metatarsus look way too long in comparison. Compare yours to the skeletal: [71] To add a bit more constructive criticisism that applies to many of your drawings, I would rely more on shading and less on lines. It makes your pieces seem a bit undefined when the body parts are starkly outlined and then lightly shaded in between the lines. Especially for feathered animals, there wouldn't not be many hard lines visible on the animal. Things like the back of the jaw muscles and thighs would be seen more as shaded "bulges" that gently blend into the rest of the body (IMO it's very doubtful that the thighs would be visible at all rather than part of the body wall). Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try that. IJReid ^discuss 14:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• A new drawing, this one modified with suggestions from Dinoguy2. Aviatyrannis [72]. IJReid ^discuss 15:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This fine, excellent recommendations from Matt. But, Why the aviatyrannis has feathers to her lips?, should be something like this drawing of Emily Willoughby [73]. And should define more the claws and arms, and the nose is too big. They seem one. and there are other suggestions here [74]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that only the hip is known, to the snout and arm can't really be truly inaccurate, nor the feathering. I'll wait for others to comment on this one before I make any changes. IJReid ^discuss 03:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the arm and the muzzle are bad, just wanted to say that part of the snout should not have feathers, as Balaur. And the arm would be better if you define, as did Nqwebasaurus. and they had a long tail the tyrannosauroids. and the step change, I'm not sure. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with some of these recent theropods but they seem to have cheeks? See Aviatyrannus and Sciurumimus etc. (Edit: Oh, I see those are supposed to be feathers, but that would be a very odd arrangement indeed. I'd draw at least the forward line of feathers overhanging from the maxilla to make it clear that's what's going on). The line designating the mouth doesn't go back far enough and gives them an ornithischian look. Aviatyrannus also seems to have a human-like eye with mobile pupil and visible white sclera. Many of the b/w drawing are quite low contrast and smudged, making them hard to see in thumbnails. The Aviatyrannus is much better in this regard, maybe you can edit the old ones to remove the smudging and erasure lines? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Nqwebasaurus would probably have had some sort of tail fan. Also, check out the details of the new feathered ornithomimus specimen presented at SVP 2015:[75] FunkMonk (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, im not sure based on the description if there would be a dromaeosaurian fan. I would guess based on the description the tail would be like in this drawing. IJReid ^discuss 02:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily like a dromaosaur, but like what was inferred for Deinocheirus (as you may remember). Also, seems the thighs would not have been feathered, and the wings would be more like those of an ostrich. FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Brilliant. excellent corrections, they look very realistic. But what happened with Aviatyrannis?.--Levi bernardo (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot about that one. But now done. Note: the snout has lips, not a beak. IJReid ^discuss 23:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Great.--Levi bernardo (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Old images

Lately I've been noticing that several old images of Wikipedia is wrong, of many users especially NT and Conty. So you have to update, or make new versions. At this point I want to deal with two particularly those of Rapetosaurus, and Scelidosaurus. On the count of Rapetosaurus I saw that the tail is rather long, and the ear is misplaced and I think the neck is something wrong at the top. The Scelidosaurus missing osteoderms and the tail is very short, look at this [76].

If you want to spend for review other images of anyone here, do not hesitate. We must revise the image, comment on, and correct. --Levi bernardo (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• 
  Rapetosaurus
• 
  Scelidosaurus
• 
  Ojoceratops
• 
  Tapuiasaurus
• 
  Anchisaurus
• 
  Lourinha sauropod
• 
  Fukuiraptor
• 
  Astrodon
• 
  Irritator

• Cool, I'll have a look at the Rapetosaurus. And feel free to add any other images encountered. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Based on overlaying the skull on the head of NT's Ojoceratops, I elongated the nasal horn and the jaw deeper. IJReid ^discuss 16:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Also, the Tapuiasaurus seems to have strange hands and a tail too long and flexible. IJReid ^discuss 16:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The whip of Tapui could be painted out. What's with the head? FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Which head? Also, the Anchisaurs has really wonky hands, both too gracile and weirdly proportioned. IJReid ^discuss 16:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah, read "hands" as "heads"... Can probaly be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now I changed the tail, base of the neck, ear, and eye region of the Rapetosaurus. Also changed tail, belly, and made hands smoother on the Tapuisaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

They are well made changes, but the Rapetosaurus tail it still seems long, look this [77].--Levi bernardo (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Strange, this skeletal[78] is different? Different age groups? FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

True, it seems the skeletal diagram Scott Hartman is a juvenile.--Levi bernardo (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I came across a sauropod restoration by Simao Mateus, of a sauropod from Louring, Portugal. I think this is of Dinheirosaurus, but it might not be. The feet and hands need to be corrected, but I'm not sure what else. IJReid ^discuss 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

True, I also see that the neck is very thin, I will see, that I can update. --Levi bernardo (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Also, this image of Fukuiraptor, NT is almost obsolete, look this skeletal [79]. I recommend to IJReid, to make this drawing.--Levi bernardo (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell, only the premaxilla and maxilla are known along with the forelimb and himdlimb. Thus, only the hand really needs to be corrected. IJReid ^discuss 03:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, not sure if there's much to do with Fukui, as so little is known. As for the Lourhina sauropod, seems a lot of sauropods are known from there, including unnamed ones, we probably can't guess what it's supposed to be, but need to ask the artist. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

About the sauropod, it mentions on the file page it is from Porto Dinheiro, which kind of limits the sauropods to Dinheirosaurus (or Supersaurus). IJReid ^discuss 15:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hello. I've never been entirely sure is Astrodon image. I only see that its tail dragging.--Levi bernardo (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

and I corrected the Sauropod Lourinha.--Levi bernardo (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Nice. As for the Astrodon, I think the neck should be longer as well. More brachiosaur-like. IJReid ^discuss 23:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Try to correct the Astrodon [80], but I feel something incapable of it. You could correct FunkMonk. --Levi bernardo (talk) 02:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with it? FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure these corrections [81].--Levi bernardo (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean the "dent" should be smoothed? FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the lines should go up.--Levi bernardo (talk) 20:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm also not sure of the proportions of the image of Irritator [82].--Levi bernardo (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the tail of Astrodon is necessarily wrong, if the tail was for example used as a fat deposit[83], it could have had all sorts of shapes near the base depending on how much fat it stored... FunkMonk (talk) 07:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

True. Thanks for clearing the doubt. And I already corrected image.--Levi bernardo (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Good job! FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Regaliceratops

Regaliceratops peterhewsi

Arcovenator, who has also made other illustrations, is considering uploading this illustration of Regaliceratops, however, he would like to know how accurate it is before he uploads it. IJReid ^discuss 13:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks good for me. Only, that delete the signature when loading image. --Levi bernardo (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good.--Levi bernardo (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There are two problems. Firstly, the central frill osteoderm, the P0, should be transversely flattened more. Now it looks like it basically had the same shape as the other epiparietals while in fact it was a triangular wedge with a sharp edge in front. The second problem is that the snout profile is depicted as a continuous line between the eyes and the rear of the nose horn. In reality, the rear base of the horn is much lower than the eye sockets and the eyes were more or less peering over the snout.--MWAK (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

New draws

• 
  Rajasaurus'head
• 
  Megaraptor
• 
  Dryosaurus
• 
  Bahariasaurus
• 
  Pinacosaurus
• 
  Alectrosaurus

Hello! From now and for two weeks, I'm going to have much more time to spend on Commons so if there are illustrations I would be happy to make it. I've drew a head of Rajasaurus and I want to know if there are some errors.Foolp (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It looks quite good, but the nostril should probably be raised to just beneath eye level. If you want things to draw, there is a list on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/To_Do_List#Most_wanted_illustrations. IJReid ^discuss 15:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Foolp (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

So, as requested on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/To_Do_List#Most_wanted_illustrations I've drew a new Megaraptor and I'm going to do a Scelidosaurus.Foolp (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This great, but the ear of the Megaraptor and Rajasaurus are very long.--Levi bernardo (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I think what you call 'ears' are just bones of skull which outcropping on the skin Foolp (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

sorry, my translator translates badly, I want to refer me to that, but it translates to "Ear".--Levi bernardo (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand, I have sometimes that kind of problem too ^^ You means that I need delete the trace next to ear ?Foolp (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

no, I'm just saying I should make the shortest ear, like the Cassowary [84]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, sadly these draws are not digital so it will takes a little of timesFoolp (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Both look great apart from the ears, which are discussed above. IJReid ^discuss 20:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the ears, I think it's OK. any others problems ?--Foolp (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

No problem, everything is fine for my. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the eye of the Megaraptor may be a bit too far down the orbit. See for example:[85] The foot claws and toes also seem a bit thin. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So I have to delete the spikes on the neck and to correct the I'd say it's pretty accurate if we let ourselves be guided by specimen MPC 100/1305 and if the individual drawn is a juvenile. There is one important problem: the large spikes at the side of the neck were by Arbour identified as simply being part of the cervical halfrings and should, in any case, be positioned directly below the other halfring elements (which by the way also number four in the first halfring). A minor point is that the outline of the body between the pelvis and the tail base could not have been that gradual: even in juveniles the ilium blades would have jutted out at the rear, creating a corner on which apparently the large hind spikes were located

OK it's did for Megaraptor. OK for it and Rajasaurus ?--Foolp (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems ok, but the background could be cleaned up? FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sadly I think my software can't clean backgrounds better than that.--Foolp (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You can paint it out with white? FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Foolp and others, I can paint out background to transparent, which ends up white in jpg. Just mentioning. IJReid ^discuss 15:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok I confirm that I can't clean up so, IJReid, if you can do that it would be nice^^--Foolp (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Why is the Bahariasaurus drawn as an abelisaur? FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if bahariasaurus is similar to deltadromeus, it could represent an eoabelisaurus-grade creatosaurian. IJReid ^discuss 16:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

But isn't Deltadromeus the sister genus to Limusaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought Limusaurus was sister to Elaphrosaurs/Spinostropheus and Deltradromeus was a noasaurid near Dahakoely per Torosa et al 2013. IJReid ^discuss 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems it is "unofficial", but see:[86] FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that it new to me. It states there that the basal position is only supported by one character, and that otherwise it can group with limusaurus within noasauridae. IJReid ^discuss 16:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I've recreate Bahariasaurus with very few database, mainly on a french paleontologist's book and G. Paul Princeto Field guide, based on the idea that It's the same animal of Deltadromeus which is an abelisaur. But I don't know about last discoveries.--Foolp (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The foot scales are likely wrong. No non-ornithuromorph theropods are known to have broad, rectangular scutes like that. Many do have foot scutes but they are short and more square or polygonal and cover the ankle and toes in multiple interlocking rows, like these:[87][88] No known ornithischian has scutes on the metatarsus, see Kulindadromeus for an example of ornithischian legs and feet:[89] [90]

Also, that Dryosaurus looks an awful lot like the ones drawn by Greg Paul [91] Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that only the integument is based on that of Greg Paul, and hopefully that is insignificant enough for the drawing to not be a copyvio. IJReid ^discuss 16:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I've drew a Pinacosaurus here. I think there are not accurate reconstruction of that dinosaur on Commons so maybe this draw can fill this gap.--Foolp (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Pinacosaurus looks good, but I'm not totally sure about the distribution of armour on it. IJReid ^discuss 14:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the exactly the problem?--Foolp (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Afaik there is no problem with it, but FunkMonk might have something to say. IJReid ^discuss 20:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think MWAK knows more about that genus than anyone around, pinging... FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty accurate if we let ourselves be guided by specimen MPC 100/1305 and if the individual drawn is a juvenile. There is one important problem: the large spikes at the side of the neck were by Arbour identified as simply being part of the cervical halfrings and should, in any case, be positioned directly below the other halfring elements (which by the way also number four in the first halfring). A minor point is that the outline of the body between the pelvis and the tail base could not have been that gradual: even in juveniles the ilium blades would have jutted out at the rear, creating a corner on which apparently the large hind spikes were located.--MWAK (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So I have to delete the spikes of the neck et and to correct the outline between the pelvis and the neck ?--Foolp (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The neck spikes certainly were there but should be shown as part of the two armour rings around the neck. Each ring had six segments, three per side; the lowest segments per side carried the spike, or keel, as an outgrowth of the segment.--MWAK (talk) 12:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Megaraptor is very wrong based on the most recent material, especially in skull shape. It should more closely resemble this: http://img04.deviantart.net/f303/i/2014/352/1/9/composite_megaraptorid_reconstruction_by_pwnz3r_dragon-d8a960i.png And here is the skull reconstruction from the paper: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqrR2IEIAAEgeUn.jpg Tomopteryx (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

What is that skull from? FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It's from Megaraptor Tomopteryx (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! How didn't I know, is it this paper?[92] The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to cite it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is that paper indeed. Tomopteryx (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Haestasaurus and others

It seems about time I added another couple drawings up for review. So I've drawn two faunas, the callovian of england, and the cedar mountain formation. Also, I've drawn a partial skeletal diagram of Haestasaurus, showing the known material. Callovian [93], Cedar Mountain [94], Haestasaurus skeleton File:Haestasaurus skeleton.jpg. IJReid ^discuss 17:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have completed a life restoration of Haestasaurus [95]. IJReid ^discuss 15:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Skeletal and recreation of Haestasaurus are great, only the tail of both this very fat. I like the details of the scales. Callovian recreation is very well done, everything look good. I'm just not sure Callovosaurus. Cedar Mountain recreation, fine. Only Tenontosaurus have very short tail, and the young Brontomerus has very fat tail.--Levi bernardo (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Haestasaurus skeletal is great, I have to concur; though since we have no tail material, I suppose a fatter tail is possible at this point. It's not really objectively wrong like, say, a scaly Microraptor, but it's not wild speculation like sticking a gigantic wattle on a reconstruction of Deinocheirus. It's that middle ground of speculation where it's not really wild, but not wrong. Raptormimus456 (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)--

Yes. but if the tail was too fat Haestasaurus you would weigh much. we must also take into account the relatives [96].--Levi bernardo (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the underside of the pelvis to tail would tend to be more of a straight tapering, and the ischium should not protrude. Also, the top of the tail would have more muscling above the neural spine, and in some Camarasaurus specimens at least, they show the tail with an upward bend near the articulation with the pelvis. IJReid ^discuss 14:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• The Sarcolestes seems to have a gigantic eye for an ankylosaur, also, the teeth row seems to be pretty irregular compared to skeletals?[97] And by the way, congrats with the paper![98] FunkMonk (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Still have some work to do on it apparently. IJReid ^discuss 14:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Brontosaurus redo

So after the corrections Matt made on my last version, along with the new SVPCA talk by Taylor et al. indicating apatosaurines may have had keratainous boss or spine rimmed necks which they used as club-like weapons(!), I think I am just going to do an entierly new reconstruction. I'll post WIPs in here as they come. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, looking forward to it. IJReid ^discuss 23:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You mean spines like what are commonly depicted, or some speculative feature? FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, give this a read :) http://svpow.com/2015/09/14/so-what-were-apatosaurs-doing-with-their-crazy-necks/ Tomopteryx (talk) 08:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you plan to create a new picture anyway, it might be a good occasion to correct the limb length/body depth ratio. Yes, Brontosaurus had a deep torso, but not that deep (or to put it differently: it had quite long limbs). As depicted now the rump height is about twice the leg length protruding below the lower profile. In fact the height of the anterior thorax would about equal the forelimb length and total hindlimb length would strongly exceed the height of the rump measured over the hips, considerable though it is. You gave the animal rather puny legs, resulting in an impossibly low implied position of the hip joint which in reality was placed halfway up the rear rump. And of course a high tail looks so much better :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I know you are trying to help, so please don't take this the wrong way, but pretty much all of that is incorrect or irrelevant. The limbs are definitely too slim and the pose is probably a bit of a stretch for the animal, as Matt pointed out somewhere above, these will be corrected on the new version. Almost everything else is not relevent to this image and I'm almost certain it is stemming from you misinterpreting where the hip is due to the upper half being appropriately buried in soft tissue. I think the easiest way to explain it is just with a visual: http://s9.postimg.org/nz6nld0jx/Brontosaurus_innards.png Thanks, I hope this doesn't sound agressive, it is not supposed to be Tomopteryx (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I have to admit that I severely underestimated the sophistication of the image: what I mistook for sheer amateurism now reveals itself to be a subtle rendering of the respective bone elements and muscle groups. Of course the outer appearance of an animal is often very deceptive regarding its internal structure. You could also decide to change the lighting angle to make the bone structure more directly understandable to the viewer. The great muscle mass between the upper rim of the ilium blade and the trochanteric shelf could then stand out a bit more and this might avoid the suggestion that the line between the apparent knee and the highlight on the thigh side points towards the hip joint. Likewise the shoulder muscles could then be accentuated more strongly, perhaps in combination with adapting the scale structure near the edge of the breast so that the actual strong curvature of this area is indicated. All this might counteract the illusion that the limb joints were placed low. Looking forward to the new picture regardless, --MWAK (talk) 08:32, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, I will take these suggestions on board for the new version. Tomopteryx (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Stokesosaurus

Someone asked me to do a reconstruction for the Stokesosaurus page, so I whipped one up. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:04, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Life reconstruction of Stokesosaurus clevelandi.

Looks pretty good to me, and well, there's not much to go by anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks great. Everything is fine for me.--Levi bernardo (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Excellent. IJReid ^discuss 19:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Great. It is up on the page. Tomopteryx (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely perfect, minus possibly not having a crest, but we have no evidence of that for Stokesosaurus anyways, so I can let it slide for now. Otherwise, it's exactly what I asked for (yeah, it was me who asked for it! :p). Raptormimus456 (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Products of the last summer

• 
  Saltillomimus
• 
  Pelorosaurus brevis
• 
  Omeisaurus tianfuensis
• 
  Chubutisaurus

Hello I concluded several images that had been promised, by the time I bring to Chubutisaurus, [99] Omeisaurus [100]. And another image: Saltillomimus [101]. In the next days I bring to Gorgosaurus, Pelorosaurus and Sauroposeidon, then to other images.--Levi bernardo (talk) 00:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

They look great! I have a few comments on the Chubutisaurus. The close foot seem to long compared to the far foot, and the first finger with the claw should be slightly farther forward, and the claw should be smaller and straighter. The Omeisaurus looks like it has a huge head, and the tail narrows too quickly after the bulge behind the hips. IJReid ^discuss 04:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry not specify the kind of Omeisaurus: is O. tianfuensis. Which has a very large head, and in some mamenchisauridae tail vertebrae were so, causing the tail narrows too quickly. [102], [103], [104]. But thanks for the comments of Chubutisaurus, will bring them.--Levi bernardo (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems Saltillomimus could be a bit deeper around the hip area, and maybe the claws are too robust?[105] What's it based on? Seems it hasn't been published yet. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, this is based on PDF page 78 [106]. I will make corrections, but what you mean is deeper around the hip area?.--Levi bernardo (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I mean this area:[107] FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.--Levi bernardo (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay, I was doing school stuff but here are corrections of Saltillomimus [108] and Chubutisaurus [109]. And recreation Pelorosaurus [110].

Looks good, and by the way, we should probably all take alook at this new paper when drawing ostrich dinosaurs:[111] FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Could Saltillomimus be the same specimen that was just names Tototlmimus? IJReid ^discuss 15:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought the same thing, but I think not, the Saltillomimus has very different legs. I'm doing an illustration of Tototlmimus will soon emerge.--Levi bernardo (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• Here are a couple of completed jobs are Mosaiceratops http://i.imgur.com/NIYH67V.png and Sauroposeidon http://i.imgur.com/DTS1UaF.jpg. And some unfinished work, are Dilophosaurus http://i.imgur.com/gYmQ5Xv.png and Probrachylophosaurus http://i.imgur.com/dNSaunU.png ('m seeing like putting 70% more rhamphotheca).--Levi bernardo (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, it seems as if the Mosaiceratops is a bit off balance? Also, the eyes on all of them could perhaps be a bit smaller... They should fit within the sclerotic ring. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mosai is so because it is running, ohh true. Sauroposeidon, Dilophosaurus, and Probrachylophosaurus need smaller eyes.--Levi bernardo (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Corrections http://i.imgur.com/71XL9bi.png, http://i.imgur.com/gFvb1ai.png. --Levi bernardo (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that since no living birds have only feathers on their heads, and no dinosaur fossils show feathers only on heads, that the Dilophosaurus should have feathers on the body too? FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's right, I'm adding feathers to various parts.--Levi bernardo (talk) 15:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Heterodontosaurus, Helioceratops, Argyrosaurus

Some rough sketches/colour blocks with little detail that will largely become digital paintings: Heterodontosaurus[112], Helioceratops[113], Argyrosaurus[114]. Any issues? FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Woow, they are great. Only Heterodontosaurus should have nostrils more ahead. And Helioceratops has the grip of very pointed leg, should have them blunt, as is Triceratops [115]. But it is a point of a scientific advisor, that has not published the information, so you can leave them like that. The Argyrosaurus is all good.--Levi bernardo (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there may be some issues with the Argyrosaurus. Through the wikilibrary, I received a copy of the redescription of the genus, and there was no hand claw. Also, the lower arm was not that robust, and the fingers were taller and straighter, with the first digit curving medially towards the end. IJReid ^discuss 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will fix these issues at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• So here's a coloured Heterodontosaurus, will get some more tweaks in colour and so on later. Any issues? Maybe Jens Lallensack has something to day? By coincidence (I based the colour somewhat on an African porcupine), it kind of ended up looking like the model for the Sereno paper, which wasn't intentional. So to differentiate them, I've made it fully fuzzed, with very little bare skin. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks good, but I do have an issue with the dentition. It seems to lack any dentary teeth other than the canines. Otherwise it looks to me to be perfectly accurate. IJReid ^discuss 23:38, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You're right, should be more visible, will fix it soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Changed teeth and some other things, better? FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. IJReid ^discuss 17:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Finally got myself together and finished the Helioceratops, any issues? FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Any particular reason the tail filaments are so thick? If they mimic the pattern seen in Psittacosaurus I'd intuitively expect them to mimic the structure, so it seems off to see Kulindadromeus type plumes in that spot. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They're actually based more on iguana frills[116] than filaments of other dinosaurs... Maybe too speculative? Though I do think the trend of putting a few quills on the tails of any and every ceratopsian (just because one specimen of Psittacosaurus has this arrangement) rather unlikely as well... Also because the known skin of ceratopsians seems to vary quite a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Megaraptor

Did a reconstruction of Megaraptor based on the new juvenile skull. Saw it's page didn't have one after. Happy coincidence. Tomopteryx (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Juvenile Megaraptor namunhuaiquiiTom Parker, Pencil 2015

I can not say any more that all is well. Good job.--Levi bernardo (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! Wish you had snuck in the front arms, though... FunkMonk (talk) 09:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have done so if I had planned for this to be on Wikipedia from the start. Tomopteryx (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Allosaurus

Felt that the life restoration of Allosaurus needed an update. Something cleaner and somewhat more appealing. Leaning little on the 'cool' side rather than explicitly 'natural', this should hopefully bring interest and fascination to those curious readers visiting the page. Fred Wierum (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Life reconstruction of Allosaurus. Fred Wierum, 2015

I definitely cannot see any big issues, and it does look accurate. If it is not too much of a hassle, a slight spattering of feathers could be added to the arm and back, but that isn't totally necessary. Much better than what we had, hopefully you can contribute further artwork as great as this for other articles in need. IJReid ^discuss 03:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks fine to me, and the one currently on the page is definitely looking a bit crusty with it's shrink-wrapped skull and weird limb proportions. Please no "slight spattering of feathers", an animal is feathered or it isn't. In this case, "isn't" is fine. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good, I have two "issues". One, the tail seems kind of flattened at the bottom, though it would be rounded in cross-section at most of the length.[117] Also, the skull seems rather broad at the base, by extrapolating from the distance between the lacrimal horns and between the jaw muscles, compare with this front view of a skull:[118] Definitely an improvement over the current one in any case, though, which seems to have a weird perspective issue with the horns. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
• Fixed based on FunkMonk's points. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Good to go. I'll put it up on the page for you. Tomopteryx (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Good stuff! Hope to see more! FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I'll start working on Irritator as soon as I can. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a very nice image. Perhaps it's good to point out that normally the tail swings in the direction of the retracted hindlimb.--MWAK (talk) 17:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Alioramus

I said I was going to do Irritator but felt the need of restoring a tyrannosaur and I believe an updated feathered Alioramus was needed for the page. If any corrections are needed please tell. Irritator is next after this. Fred Wierum (talk) 02:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Alioramus life restoration.

Wonderful, but it appears to lack the skin flap connecting the lower thigh to the stomach, I forget what its called. IJReid ^discuss 04:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I figured the thigh was so forward the flap wouldn't show, that's why it's not there. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I guess unless one of the others comments on this further it does not hinder its accuracy. IJReid ^discuss 04:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely wrong: there should not be teeth hanging over lips. That is extremely functionally impractical. It needs a full oral seal or complete crocodile-mouth. Things I would do differently: I would feather the pectorals and more heavily feather the forearm (Yutyrannus has long feathers there compared to the rest of it's body), more heavily feather the thigh and strip them back off the tail. I would also have large scutes on the metatarsals. I have a reason for this but it's a secret. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think those issues are within the boundaries of speculation. No sure evidence for or against. Not all related animals are necessarily alike in their integument. Why is it impractical that the teeth would overhang the lips? This feature is present in all saber-toothed predators, for example. They're mammals, of course, but I can only think of lepidosaurs that have completely sealed teeth, not really close relatives. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, I changed everything except for the feathers on the legs. Because it was a hot environment I assumed feather loss on the leg would help with heatloss...and it's too big of a pain to change. I hope this is fine. Fred Wierum (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Should be ready, I think. Seems there's a subtle border at the top of the image, just so you're aware... FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Dang sorry, its not quite ready. There is one final thing, which species is it? Can't believe we forgot about this, :P IJReid ^discuss 13:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Lol, you're right. Looks like remotus, though, the nasal rugosities are taller... FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Whatever species that is shown in the size chart on the wiki page,it's based on that one. So yes, it's A. Remotus. Fred Wierum (talk) 17:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been bold and replaced the original recon in the article with Fred's version, as it is much better overall. Hopefully, that's alright with everyone! Raptormimus456 (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Ornithomimus

Seeing as there is no reconstruction on the Ornithomimus page as it stands (suprising for a reletively well-known animal), I am going to do one with the new specimen published today in Cretaceous Research in mind. Will likely have a WIP up later today. Tomopteryx (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

True, it's fine for your interest in this genre so careless.--Levi bernardo (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Life reconstruction of "Ornithomimus" sp. based on specimens from the Dinosaur Park Formation.

And here we are Tomopteryx (talk) 08:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• About time someone did this one, looks good. I may have misinterpreted something, but weren't the feathers at the tip of the tail supposed to be longer than the rest? Or was that only proposed for Deinocheirus? Also, seems American ornithomimid classification is a bit messy, so perhaps this'll end up in a different genus? FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The feathers on the tip of the tail are not preserved on any of the specimens. The new one the preservation stops about 2 thirds of the way down and aren't much different from the body feathers. Orithomimid phylogeny is unbeleivably messy and this probably will end up as something different, but for now it is Ornithomimus so we can put it on the page. I will be continuing to refer to it as "Ornithomimus" sp. though. Tomopteryx (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Stratigraphically, the species is likely samueli. Whether this is Ornithomimus, Dromeiciomimus, or option 3 will likely depend on a good specimen-level analysis. For now consensus seems to be to include the Dromeiciomimus complex in Ornithomimus. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A specimen level analysis of North American ornithomimids is desperately needed. Tomopteryx (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Stegosaurus stenops

Life restoration of Stegosaurus stenops based on the "Sophie" specimen, NHMUK PV R36730. Digital.

I've been trying to untangle some of the differences between various species/morphs of Stegosaurus for a personal project, and realized we don't really have many good life restorations that aren't based on composite specimens or conflate characters from multiple species/specimens. I think until stegosaur taxonomy is a bit better resolved, it should be clear what specimen a depiction is meant to be. I had done this as part of a piece depicting AMNH 650, which is itself a composite labelled S. stenops but which appears to incorporate the tail of an S. ungulatus. I re-sized and re-shaped some of the plates and adjusted the limb proportions yo match the "Sophie" specimen, which is the most complete example referred to S. stenops. This way if anything changes taxonomically, the only thing that needs to be altered is the caption. Does everything look like it lines up in terms of depicting this specimen? Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me, though I admittedly don't know much about stegosaurs. But it seems the neck plates are very close to the head, compared to the Sophie mount? Also, did the new paper resolve the plate and spike arrangement you also mentioned on your blog? Is it unique to each species? FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I did place the neck plates a little farther forward to give them some breathing room. In a staggered double row as shown by Sophie and other articulated stenops, I was having a hard time figuring out what to do with those cervical plates when the neck is retracted, they don't seem to fit unless I space them out up to the rear of the skull. I'll have to double check to make sure the neck is actually long enough. The new paper only focused on stenops, though the authors consider ungulatus a synonym they don't go into any details. Going by Galton 2010 it seems like ungulatus may not be known from enough representative plates to tell the arrangement and none are articulated. Tantalizingly, the ungulatus holotype is the only Stegosaurus found with mirror-image plates, implying they might have been paired, not staggered as in stenops. Lull originally mounted the ungulatus holotype this way but it was changed to staggered in 1924 for some reason. I'm also not satisfied by the explanations I've been reading for the eight spike thing... the lack of any other doubled bones is pretty surprising, and "there might be more doubled bones still in the quarry" is an odd defense... Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Just checked and the neck was a little too short, crowding the cervical plates. Tweaked the image to reflect the right neck proportions. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool, looks more "normal", might have been an "OR" concern if the arrangement was "original"... FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I really like the artwork! It's always tricky to depict the plates. Ýou refer to a "staggered double row" of neck plates but the first four very narrow ones are essentially mounted in a single row with "Sophie". This is confirmed by their symmetrical bases. The sixth plate is the first to have an asymmetrical base, tilting to the left, as you correctly show. The sixth is also conspicuously wider in side view than the fifth, while the seventh is clearly higher than the sixth. Am I correct in presuming that you conservatively left out the "fourteenth" plate added to the mount?--MWAK (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I did leave out the 14th plate but tried to leave it ambiguous i.e. made it look like there could an extra one be sort of hiding behind some of the others in the crowded cervical and anterior dorsal region. If you look carefully there could be an extra "background" row plate right at the lowest point at the base of the neck hidden behind the last cervical and first dorsal plate as they are inclined forward/backward. This would bring the plate count up to 19 as reported in the paper. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)