Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Dinosaurs/Image review/To Do List#Guidelines for dinosaur restorations Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations" c:Category:Inaccurate dinosaur restorations, so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Various dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy:

• 
  Auroraceratops
• 
  Velociraptor
• 
  Spinosaurus
• 
  Siats

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

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

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

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

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

Various unreviewed diagrams

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revisiting this again, I think I see the issue: the skull looks too low relative to the cervical vertebrae. It looks like the occipital joint would be somewhere around the middle of the neck. Maybe another overlay would clear things up but it looks strange. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's a pretty rough mockup. Based on this I'll admit there might be a little too much soft tissue on the upper part of the neck. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ardetosaurus

Ardetosaurus size

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

The sacral region seems to be dorsoventrally a little narrower than the skeletal suggests (again, could be an artefact of reposing). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Should just be differences in posing. I slightly rearticulated the vertebral column for my silhouette. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ardetosaurus viator

Follows the known material and published skeletal.

• 

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

No major problems. Is there a reason why the thumb claw appears to be directed posterodorsally? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Ardetosaurus (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

Ardetosaurus

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

For unclear reasons, the right hind foot appears to be rotated outwards, such that not much of the first claw is visible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Various Dinosaurs (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjusted Therizinosaurus proportions. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Scaled to the same skull length, the eyes and lacrimal crests of Ceratosaurus are too far forward, even compared to C. "dentisulcatus". It is also missing the fourth digit of the hand. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Adjusted crests, added fourth digit to hand. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The eye of Eotriceratops seems situated too far dorsally, such that the socket seems to be going into the horn. What was your reference for the form of the frill? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The skull was probably based on Fadeno's reconstruction.

[1] Aventadoros (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Correct. It is based on Fadeno's reconstruction. Please see this image for reference - if I should move the eye down, please advise on how exactly I should do that. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Skeletal of Tethyshadros insularis

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

• 

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

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

Yeah source[2] only says "CC BY" and nothing other than that. I don't think image with unclear licence can be uploaded. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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

• 

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

I replaced image to this one but seems the user reverted my edit. Is that image they added from EurekAlert having legit licence? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak to this particular scenario but EurekAlert has a problematic history with license laundering (this scenario comes to mind...) so I would be hesitant to use any images directly sourced from there, especially when nearly-identical, less questionably-licensed images exist. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yuanyanglong

Yuanyanglong (Ddinodan)

Following the published material and Avimimus.

• 

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can't access this paper but are the scaling of those elements correct? This looks extreme. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It certainly is extreme but it's also accurate. I made sure to check all the measurements with the holotype and referred specimens (and it helps that they are generally articulated on a single block). Also from the paper: "The skull...is small relative to the postcranium, with its anteroposterior length...only half the length of the ilium." -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yuanyanglong skeletal

• 
  Skeletal diagram

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

Yuanyanglong (UDL)

And here's mine.

• 

The head seems a little too large on this one relative to the skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Head size reduced. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

New genera of 2024

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

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

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 
• 
• 
• 

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

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

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

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

Datai does not have forelimb osteoderms, but it does have gular osteoderms. Also unsure where the spike-like lowest row of osteoderms has come from. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Kiyacursor appears to have a third pedal digit that is longer compared to the second and fourth than suggested here. The paper's skeletal poses the foot in a Vespersaurus-like fashion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Koleken's skull seems dorsoventrally too short compared to how it is reconstructed by the authors, which seems reasonable in light of the breakage in the nasal and maxilla. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Tiamat has a very long torso. Any particular reason for this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Lacking access to the paper describing Gandititan, I cannot be sure which is correct, but here it's shown with a very large and thick tail whereas UDL's reconstruction shows the opposite. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

new Spinosaurus

• 
• 

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

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

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

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

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

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

More dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy:

• 
  Compsognathus
• 
  Silesaurus
• 
  Mononykus
• 
  Carnotaurus
• 
  Moros

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

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

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

Sorry, silesaurs are new territory for me, as their status within dinosauria is questionable. Can you point to a source regarding their digits? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

That's just the baseline for archosaurs. But based on lagerpetids this is clearly reversible (I don't know if any silesaurid hands exist). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mononykus almost certainly would've had vestigial lateral digits that would be visible if the hand was unfeathered as you've reconstructed it. It has the articular facets for them, and Shuvuuia has them. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Vestigial fingers added to Mononykus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The skull of Carnotaurus doesn't seem tall enough, and the chest projects out too much in front of the shoulder girdle. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Carnotaurus skull taller, osteoderms reduced to feature scales, claws on hand removed, chest reduced. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What's the basis of the lacrimal crest of Moros? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I based the skull on this skeletal, and the crest is just speculation. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaurs by year (Atlantis536)

Megalosaurus

Megalosaurus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iguanodon

Iguanodon

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

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

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

Streptospondylus

Streptospondylus

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

Hylaeosaurus

Hylaeosaurus

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

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

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

Thecodontosaurus

Thecodontosaurus

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

Same comment as Agrosaurus on the flexed first digit. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Plateosaurus

Plateosaurus

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

Cetiosaurus

Cetiosaurus

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

Regnosaurus

Regnosaurus

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

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

Pelorosaurus

Pelorosaurus

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

Given what we now know of sacrum wedging in titanosauriforms (not known when that skeletal was made), I think the posterior neck is overly extended and the vertebral column should form a straighter line. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Aepisaurus

Aepisaurus

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

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

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

Massospondylus

Massospondylus

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

Troodon

Troodon

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

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

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

Stenopelix

Stenopelix

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

Hadrosaurus

Hadrosaurus

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

Scelidosaurus

Scelidosaurus

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

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

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

I don't see why that would prevent the papers' other conclusions from being usable; for instance, see how Norman has aligned the three rows of principal osteoderms across the torso and tail in his diagram. The form of the occipital horn also differs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Archaeopteryx

Archaeopteryx

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

The left hallux should still be visible in this view. The number of primaries + secondaries is 25, where Wellnhofer reconstructed 26; the form of the distalmost primaries is also incorrect. The minor tract of the upper coverts (see same diagram) is missing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:24, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Polacanthus

Polacanthus

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

I'm not sure it makes sense to visually differentiate the pelvic shield like this, and I'm also not sure why it appears to be overlapping the osteoderms in front of it. I also have trouble seeing how the beak would occlude properly. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus

• 
• 

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

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

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

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

Huaxiazhoulong

Huaxiazhoulong (Ddinodan)

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

• 

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

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

Huaxiazhoulong size comparison

• 
  Size comparison

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

Huaxiazhoulong (UDL)

• 

I realise that the paper restores it this way, but is there any evidence for forelimb osteoderms of this form in any ankylosaurine more basal than the "tarchiids" (assuming that's what MPC 100/1305 and 1359 are)? This goes for all three images. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:59, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure there's actually a basis for including arm osteoderms for the more basal taxa. I can remove them on mine if they're problematic. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Kuru kulla skull diagram

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

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

I personally think this is fine if the diagram is used to point out the autapomorphies and other features highlighted in the text. To that end, I'd perhaps add a label for the third dentary tooth. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:01, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

New dinosaur images

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

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

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

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

Here they are

• 
  Struthiosaurus
• 
  Mochlodon
• 
  Tornieria

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

Struthiosaurus matches the Frotzler reconstruction but the back foot is posed unnaturally. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Navaornis

• 

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

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

Very late reply, but those twigs could also feasibly be interpreted as nesting material. I dont think holding twigs in its beak implies a plant-based diet. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

New dinosaur images by Atlantis536

I’ve made a lot more side view dinosaur images since I’ve last posted here. As with the previous time, before I upload any of them here, which species would you like to see and/or which do you think are most needed by this Wikiproject?

- Acrocanthosaurus atokensis
- Amygdalodon patagonicus
- Antarctosaurus wichmannianus
- Arrhinoceratops brachyops
- Bahariasaurus ingens
- Brachylophosaurus canadensis
- Carcharodontosaurus saharicus
- Cetiosauriscus stewarti
- Edmontonia longiceps
- Edmontosaurus regalis
- Elaphrosaurus bambergi
- Gorgosaurus libratus
- Lufengosaurus huenei
- Mandschurosaurus amurensis
- Montanoceratops cerorhynchus
- Omeisaurus junghsiensis
- Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis
- Panoplosaurus mirus
- Parasaurolophus walkeri
- Parksosaurus warreni
- Pinacosaurus grangeri
- Proceratosaurus bradleyi
- Prosaurolophus maximus
- Psittacosaurus mongoliensis
- Sanpasaurus yaoi
- Sarcosaurus woodi
- Segisaurus halli
- Spinosaurus aegyptiacus
- Stenonychosaurus inequalis
- Styracosaurus albertensis
- Talarurus plicatospineus
- Tarbosaurus baatar
- Therizinosaurus cheloniformis
- Velociraptor mongoliensis
- Yunnanosaurus huangi

Atlantis536 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Lophostropheus

• 

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I found this work is especially similar to this work[3] in tumblr. Not sure if author is same or just got traced. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I initially clocked this as being similar to the Leandra Walters Dilophosaurus (or perhaps there's another image I'm thinking of). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Pretty odd limb proportions, and the femur probably couldn't rotate that far back. FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

sorry for my recent absence from image review - i've been busy with SVP and research work. The caption says it's 'based on Matt Weaver' which seems to be the same person who posted on tumblr, based on this fandom wiki page. No indication that the original work is in the public domain so this is very probably a copyvio. Also, the choice to put a crest on Lophostropheus seems like the illustrator didn't realize the 'lopho' in the name refers to laminae of the vertebrae rather than a cranial crest. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Correction: The Fandom Wiki is supposedly CC-BY-SA which means the derivative work would be allowed but it must be licensed as CC-BY-SA not CC0 Skye McDavid (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't trust Fandom Wiki licence, even if wiki licence is like that, it seems having more loose community which would get a lot of copyvio images. This in that certain Wiki for example is CLEARLY not under Creative Commons.[4] Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to tag copyvio since it's not a clear-cut case, but have nominated for deletion. Skye McDavid (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

subsequently have noticed multiple deletion notices on this user's talk page. Skye McDavid (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Various dinosaurs (UDL)

Please review for accuracy:

• 
  Nyasasaurus
• 
  Psittacosaurus
• 
  Megaraptor
• 
  Dryosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems on many of these that the second finger is very "inset" in relation to the rest? Pretty sure they would all be parallel. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. On the far (dinosaur's left) hand, I've shaded it to look like a palm. Is that what you're referring to? If so, I admit it may be too humanlike... UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

It's on their left hands: the second finger is significantly more shaded, but I'm not sure why that would be the case, it makes it look like it is on a different plane (further behind) than the other fingers, even though they would all be parallel. That is especially clear on the Nyasasaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Psittacosaurus sp. is missing its patagia and cloacal pigmentation. The feature scales of the shoulder also look only like pigmentation here, which is incorrect. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:14, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Patagia added, cloacal pigmentation added, feature scales on shoulder made more pronounced. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Nanosaurus agilis

Nanosaurus

life reconstruction of Nanosaurus agilis Jfstudiospaleoart (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't the nostril had been fleshy and free of the beak? There should probably also be visible skin flaps connecting the thigh with the body. FunkMonk (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Its probably worth doing a reconstruction with feathers as well, given ornithischians probably had feathers ancestrally. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The skull seems shrinkwrapped. Why is the temporal fenestra outlined? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

What did you base this reconstruction off of? To my knowledge there's no skeletal diagrams of the animal outside of the one by GSP, which looks very different. As for some more specific notes (aside from ones listed above), the head looks very Dryosaurus-esque, and the tail seems a little short in proportion to the body. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be traced from Scott Hartman’s Othnielosaurus (a junior synonym) 49.144.192.130 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Yingshanosaurus skeletal

• 
  Skeletal

Skeletal reconstruction of the oft-overlooked stegosaur Yingshanosaurus, known from a reasonably complete skeleton. Unfortunately this lack of attention means effectively nothing has been published on it since its 1994 description. However, it does seem to be referrable to the "stegosaurid" part of the tree rather than "huayangosaurid" side. Most of the material is at least figured in one view, except for some vertebrae (shown in lighter grey). None of the neck/skull is known, so this is based largely on Jiangjunosaurus. With this skeletal in mind, it may be worth revisiting the two life restorations of Yingshanosaurus on Commons (Image by UnexpectedDinoLesson and Image by Ddinodan) since neither quite accurately capture the known proportions. Comments welcome as always. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

How did you decide on the orientation of the shoulder spike? Also if Ca2 was not figured then how did you infer the extent of the missing neural spine? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:25, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The parascapular spine could just as easily be directed upwards. Or directly out. There doesn't seem to be evidence either way. This way it obscures the vertebral column less. As for Ca2, the description states that it is missing the top of the neural spine, so the exact amount is speculative. The preservation extent/quality is not commented on for the other caudals. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Tarbosaurus life restoration

Life restoration of the tyrannosaurid Tarbosaurus baatar.

I made this life restoration/paleoart of the huge tyrannosaurid Tarbosaurus baatar.

I mainly used the skeletal reconstructions made by J.W.P. Hakkens (Batavotyrannus) and Scott Hartman as reference for this illustration. In my experience and point of view, it undoubtedly came out as an accurate depiction. It's highely recommended that you open the full image to see all the details in it.

Please review and let me know if I can post it on the Tarbosaurus wikipedia page. Oh and let me know what'd you think of the artwork itself aswell ;). Sauroarchive (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it looks great! Although I'd crop out some of the blank space above and below the illustration just so it can be used for cladograms, tables, etc. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Yeah, that's a nice suggestion. Do you know how can I update the file/image? Sauroarchive (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a link that says "Upload a new version of this file" if you scroll down. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Savannasaurus

Life restoration added to the article without review. Considering the likely position of the taxon outside Lithostrotia, I feel that the osteoderms are unwarranted. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't illustrate osteoderms to this extent in a basal titanosaur, but given their possible presence in Tiamat, I'm not sure we can necessarily regard them as "inaccurate". Although diamantinasaurs might not even be titanosaurs, so... -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Lishulong

Follows the published material and Yunnanosaurus.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 00:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

For me looks good. 49.144.192.130 (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Lishulong has a proportionately smaller head than many sauropodiforms (see skeletal below). Kind of a picky comment, but since the skull and neck are the only preserved parts it's kind of important to get right. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, a bit picky. Overlaying the two images and scaling mine to yours' neck, the skull is like. an inch larger than yours. You or anyone else are welcome to adjust that if you really need. Ddinodan (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Skeletal

• 
  Skeletal

Reconstructed skeleton of Lishulong with gaps mostly filled with the anatomically similar (and more complete) Yunnanosaurus youngi (by the way, this animal is absurdly large). -SlvrHwk (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

looks good Skye McDavid (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Lourinhasaurus and others

• 
  Lourinhasaurus
• 
  Stegosaurus armatus
• 
  Pegomastax
• 
  Tyrannosaurus (Stan)
• 
  Velociraptor (already tagged inaccurate)
• 
  Indeterminate ankylosaur

This Lourinhasaurus is added by @Pfonseca1999: without review. Other works are from 2015. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Except Lourinhasaurus, they seem to have rather wonky anatomy, and the last one is entirely made up... FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Lourinhasaurus is the only usable one. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The works from 2015 are not intended for use, I uploaded them many years ago. The Lourinhasaurus reconstruction was made recently. I decided to upload it for use in the article. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I won't bother pointing out the errors in the ones from 2015 since the author agrees they are not usable. In the future, works should be submitted for review here prior to including them on Wikipedia pages. Regarding Lourinhasaurus, I'm not sure what to make of the zig-zag linework on the front of the body and both sides of the forelimb... what is that supposed to represent? Skye McDavid (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The zig-zag linework represents feature-, or ornamental-scales as they are known to exist in many sauropods and non-avian dinosaurs. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 12:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, feature scales are present in many sauropods and non-avian dinosaurs, but it's far from clear that that's what the linework represents. I would recommend revising the linework to just plain lines and if you want to include feature scales, illustrate them differently so that it's clear that that's what they represent. Skye McDavid (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version of the figure with revised lineart. I have removed the feature scales. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The indeterminate ankylosaur is actually Dracopelta zbyszewskii. 73.186.196.43 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

There is one (or more, if the specimens I have seen so far are collected from different localities) new ankylosaurian specimens from Portugal, yet to describe. They might be Dracopelta, although that information is yet to be confirmed. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Although I can confirm that when I did that drawing, the intent was to depict Dracopelta. Pfonseca1999 (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Lishulong (UDL)

Please review for accuracy:

• 

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thyreosaurus

Follows the published material and Dacentrurus. I've done two options here - one which follows the highly reduced plate perspective taken from the authors, and one that interprets these osteoderms as being from the body (similar to Huayangosaurus' body osteoderms but larger) instead of dorsal plates. The latter is maybe a bit too independent researchy for Wikipedia, but I thought it'd be important to provide two plausible options.

• 
• 

Ddinodan (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thyreosaurus is one of those taxa I think should not have a life reconstruction on Wikipedia (yet), simply because of the lack of published interpretations to the armor. Fragmentary taxa, including tooth taxa, can at least be given generalized reconstructions based on close relatives, but such a unique taxon definitely deserves scientific precedent. Thus, I believe neither of these images should be added anywhere yet (especially by your superfans) 49.144.192.130 (talk) 04:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You really need to stop being weird with this "superfan" thing. It really makes you come off as strange and unprofessional, and doesn't benefit any sort of case you have in using other peoples' reconstructions. Having a one-sided beef on Wikipedia of all places is ridiculous.

Thyreosaurus has one published interpretation of this armour, and that is enough to come up with at least one interpretation. This interpretation is not provided visually in the paper - providing a reconstruction of what they actually mean actually sounds quite important. Ddinodan (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• The most unique/speculative aspect about a Thyreosaurus illustration is its osteoderms. The same is true of essentially every incomplete thyreophoran. Ignoring these, the anatomy of Thyreosaurus is consistent with the established body plan for dacentrurines. These restorations accurately capture that. An important aspect of this review page is for editors to ensure that illustrations are consistent with published information. The arrangement of this taxon's osteoderms has been discussed in the literature, and these restorations generally follow that. As long as the restorations don't include extreme and unnecessary speculation (which these don't) I don't see why they would be unusable, with the agreement of other editors here. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the former (with no dorsal plates) is probably the safer bet just because its based on a description in the literature. Even though it looks... very unusual with no plates. That said, I don't think keeping both is necessarily out of the question, as long as the distinction that one is based directly on the description provided by the paper's authors and the other one has plates based on related taxa. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

How is one of them "based directly on the description provided by the paper's authors"? The paper doesn't discuss the extent of the osteoderms or whether or not the taxon would have also born 'typical' stegosaur plates and/or spines. It only remarks that the preserved osteoderms would have been arranged recumbently (which both of these follow). As such, both of these restorations are plausible following the limited available information. The biggest issue for me is the scale of the recumbent plates; even taking into account being partially embedded in the torso, the largest of the illustrated osteoderms is significantly smaller than the largest preserved osteoderm (which is even broken on two surfaces so would have been even larger, see here). -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• In cases like this, we should go with the most conservative, generic option, and follow exactly how it has been restored in the description or associated press release artwork. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is there were none. 49.144.192.130 (talk) 09:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Silvisaurus [OLD]

• 

I noticed this old Silvisaurus being used on the page. In addition to the poor image quality, it seems to be a quick trace of the skull restoration in Eaton 1960, which differs significantly from the actual skull as figured in Carpenter and Kirkland 1998. However, as is unfortunately all too common with 1990s publications, the photo quality is unusable to make a better diagram. I don't know if a better illustration can be made based on what is currently published, but wanted to raise the issue of whether this old image should be kept on the page. Skye McDavid (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on a quick google search, the skull appears to be on display in Lawrence, Kansas and photos of it may be in the book "Oceans of Kansas". Its probably worth getting an actual photo rather than trying to make a replacement illustration. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not in the book Oceans of Kansas. Photo would be the best if it is indeed on display Skye McDavid (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Fylax

Recently realized this taxon has no life recons here and since I drew it around the time it was first described, I extracted this from my old drawing from three years ago. I do realize this thing is known from just a dentary and that this is essentially a Tethyshadros since I used that for the unknown parts (i.e. almost everything). Olmagon (talk) 13:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The lines indicating individual fingers should perhaps not be there? They would have been covered in skin. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed them now. Olmagon (talk) 15:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps the left forefoot should be expanded posteriorly as well, so that it looks like it has another digit? It looks like we're seeing claws on digits III and IV right now (which of course is incorrect). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hand has been modified again. Olmagon (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Archaeocursor

Follows the published femur and Eocursor.

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The lower jaw seems very deep, at least as deep at the upper jaw? Looks much shallower in Hartman's Eocursor skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

It isn't a direct copy-paste tracework of Hartman's Eocursor so yes it'll look different. Even so, when I overlay my linework on his, the depth difference is negligible (about the width of his linework when I scale to the cranium). Ddinodan (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't in itself that it doesn't fit Hartman's skeletal, but is there any reason to give an animal in its clade an exceptionally deep mandible? Looks to me like it's almost deeper than the upper jaw. FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the issue is the length of the skull + the protofeathers on the lower jaw. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm mainly talking about the part of the jaw in front of the feathers which seems to be skin. FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, the mandible isn't that deep. I compared it to Hartman. The depth of the mandible is near identical to his. Ddinodan (talk) 20:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't look too deep compared to the skull. A fairly deep mandible is present in heterodontosaurs, Agilisaurus, and some silesaurs. Even adult Lesothosaurus (Barrett et al. 2016; Sciscio et al. 2017) has a fairly deep mandible compared to subadults. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Skeletal + size

• 
  Skeletal
• 
  Size

Another straightforward skeletal for an ornithischian known from a single femur. Quite small, too. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Remainder of the 2024 dinosaurs

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Ddinodan (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Overlaying Hartman's T. rex on T. mcraeensis, the arm seems to attach a bit too far ventrally (i.e. the glenoid needs to be moved dorsally). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

When I overlay with Hartman, as well as with the skeletals I actually used (Franoys T. rex + Valdez' T. mcraeensis) the arm placement is fine. Ddinodan (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

What I am suggesting is here in red: [5] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hartman skeletals are produced in perfect lateral, which is not what I drew. Tyrannosaurus didn't exist in a perfect 2D plane.

The skeletals I did refer to incorporate the curve of the chest into the placement of the arm. Ddinodan (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Attachment points are maybe off by a few centimeters? I think this is small enough of a detail that it does not matter if it is corrected (or needs to be). The Morrison Man (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The fossil suggests that the front end of the dentary of U. norelli needs to be a bit deeper and more square (this is a diagnostic character). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I traced the lower dentary (with appropriate soft tissue) when doing the recon. It is shaped appropriately. Ddinodan (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Allosaurus anax

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Question;

What is to come of the diplodocid material that was also found? 73.186.196.43 (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It's dubious, as explained in Saurophaganax. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

• Looks good to me, but on this note, how should we treat our old Allosaurus-like "Saurophaganax" life restorations and skeletal mounts? Recategorise them as as A. anax, or keep them as "historical" restorations of Saurophaganax, as that article now labels one such restorations? I think it makes more sense to recategorise them, as they are de-facto A. anax? FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Most of the Allosaurus-like Saurophaganax reconstrctions could presumably be reassigned to A. anax, although the possibility remains that Saurophaganax is still a large theropod. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Saurophaganax reconstructions are traditionally been based on Allosaurus anyways, considering their close relation and even previously proposed synonymy at genus level. Most that look like Allosaurus should be of use for A. anax, in my opinion. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that using Saurophaganax maximus reconstructions as Allosaurus anax makes sense; they're all reconstructions of the same giant allosaurid from Kenton Quarry 1, whatever the nomenclatural situation. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

  Saurophaganax is almost certainly a dubious species at this point. As for the reconstructions that were made prior to the paper by Danison et al., I recommend recategorizing them as A. anax. I agree the diplodocid material is also dubious. 2601:197:F00:330:359A:BCCE:511C:CFF5 (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Archaeocursor (UDL)

Archaeocursor

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)