Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Patagotitan

Well, now and after many requests from both here, Facebook and DA I have the obligation (Because it was used in newspaper notes, even when it was terribly done) to correct and redo the illustration of Patagotitan, right now I am working with a silhouette drawing based on the Scott Hartman diagram, and also on a model for that serves as a basis for a drawing of the paleoenvironment. At the moment I only show photos of the model [1], any comments or suggestions? --Levi bernardo (talk) 05:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Proportions look to match what we know, width is about right, it looks a little unfinished for some finer details but thats because it is. Welcome back. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

OK well. Yes, exactly because it is unfinished. I based on the model of the supplementary information and photos that are available on the web and here for tail and neck thicknesses and shapes. Thank you very much. --Levi bernardo (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Berberosaurus

Hi, just noticed this got uploaded to the Berberosaurus page by Mariolanzas without review. One of the first things I noticed is that the right foot is more fatty and has shorter metatarsals than than the left foot, and also gets thinner towards the ankle. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That's also one weird head. Some kind of dilophosaur (the kinked snout) abelisaur hybrid, reflecting its various classifications? He also has a lot of other unreviewed restorations which could maybe be discussed here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Baryonyx

Now that I've gotten my laptop fixed, I'm back to uploading paleoart here! To start off, here's an early sketch of a Baryonyx restoration I've started to work on. I know the animal's page already has one. But since I've been requested to draw this animal many times, and it's also being created for a spinosaurid size chart I'm working on, I thought I might as well give it a go on Wikipedia as well, and see if I can give the effort to make as best of a reconstruction as my abilities will allow. Any suggestions for this sketch so far? (Mind the tip of the dentary being incorrect, still working on the skull). ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:07, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Since we already have many good ones, why not make an image that shows some kind of hypothesised spinosaur behaviour we don't have illustrated? Or maybe a higher res skeletal than the Headden one? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree, but the other projects I'm making this illustration for require a plain depiction of the animal. I was just taking the chance to see if It'd be of any use to Wikipedia as well; in any case, more avaliable restorations isn't necessarily a bad thing. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've fixed up some things with the skull, neck, and feet, added the nostril, eye, and ear, corrected the lengths of the pubis and ischium, and made the right arm visible. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Started the lineart. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Just noticed: what's the reasoning behind the allosaurid-like lacrimal crest? I'm not sure there is an actual lacrimal crest in spinosaurids. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I've started work on the head scales and extended the nasal crest with some keratin (let me know if it's too much). My mistake on the lacrimal crest, must've misinterpreted the skull. Removed now. There was a little bump on the dorsal surface of the lacrimals though, which I've now added. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The foot placement makes it look off balance, like it would fall over. I wonder what else we could do to make it more unique/usable, because as for now, there's not much room or need for an additional, similar restoration in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Working on the feet. As for possible uses, when I finish drawing the animal, perhaps I could illustrate a scene of its environment around it? Which could be used in place of this[2] image in the palaeoecology section, as the Baryonyx in it is somewhat low resolution anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 11:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If it shows more of the particulars of the Weald Clay Formation (plants, animals, landscape), yeah. The current image is rather generic in that sense. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Alectrosaurus Skeleton Reconstruction 2.0

Well, finally here is the updated skeletal for Alectrosaurus. I have fixed the femur and almost every bone, in terms of structure and length, any comments? By the way, I'll start to work on the Bayan Shireh faunal diagram. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 05:15, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What was the reasoning behind removing the scapula and skull material? It would be nice to have those illustrated in the article, currently we only have an image of the leg bones. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It appears that this reconstruction is based on the lectotype, and the unknown material is based on other specimens (of potentially questionable taxonomic affiliation). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes got it right, this skeletal is based on AMNH 6554, the most important specimen. I wasn't able to find the accurate measurements for specimens AMNH 6556, IGM 50 and 51, so, they were adjusted to match the size of AMNH 6554. In the previous version I just mixed everything with some fatal measurements. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I would remove AMNH 6556/AMNH FARB 6556 until it's definitively referred to Alectrosaurus. Carr seems to be working on it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue with some of a user's silhouette image uploads

Dear WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review, Please be informed about the following discussion on Commons: [3] --Schlurcher (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Erlikosaurus Skeleton Reconstruction

Well, its been a while, I have been working on a page expansion for Erlikosaurus (already expanded) and an updated skeletal for it. Nothing much to say really, the only thing that bothers me is the 30 cm long humerus, which is massive compared to the skull, comments? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

What is the reasoning behind the unknown elements? They seem extremely arbitrary to me. In particular, I am surprised the (unpreserved) manus is included while the (actually preserved) cervical vertebrae are not. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say include a full grey unpreserved skeleton or remove it all. Also, the greyed hand unguals seem incredibly long and curved. Not sure which other therizinosaur shave such morphology. Either they are very long and relatively straighter, like Therizinosaurus, or they are very curved and relatively shorter, like Nothronychus. Cool with the article expansion, but I wonder why you have uploaded these image under CC licences:[4][5] As far as I can see, they are not free. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I think that the pectoral girdle could be left in the skeletal, since the humerus may confuse some readers. The claws were based on Nothronychus, as you pointed. Lythronaxargestes The cervicals are not illustraded and the quantity is unknown, therefore I omitted those remains. As for the images, I thought that the skull file was allowed? and for the foot image, I wasn't sure of the permissions surrounding it, and to find the permissions. I thought that it could supply the article but apparenly it needs to be removed. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that paper itself does not seem to have any free licence attached to it. Their terms of use makes clear that there is no one overall licence, as some journals have. Which makes sense, since Taylor and Francis is not a journal, but a company that owns various journals. As for the claws, the unguals of Nothro[6] don't seem nearly as long relatively, so I think they need to be shorter in the diagram. Also, which I somehow overlooked, Erliko seems very small? Greg Paul gives an estimate of 6 metres, and though I see Holtz gives 3.4 metres, how do you end up at 2.4 metres? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a recurrent topic in dinosaurs and skeletals, most authors give length and measurements without taking into account the actual remains. The skull of Erlikosaurus is 25-26 cm, how in the world will an animal with such small head reach 6 m? 3.4 m seems more reasonable, however in order to reach that, the remains would need to be scaled-up, very unnatural and inaccurate. They do estimates yes, but these estimates could be applied to the genus, very unlikely for the particular specimen (at least the estimate fits the preserved remains reasonably). My skeletals are oriented to particular specimens, the representative ones. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but if you say this is your own personal estimate, we have a problem with WP:original research, which is not allowed (not saying your estimate is right or wrong). At the least, you should use the smallest published estimate. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, is the scale bar 2.4m long or is the Erlikosaurus 2.4m long? I'd reccommend removing the 2.4m scale bar, as it's rather confusing. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I can't really see the confusion, it is pretty clear that the bar is representing the total length of the animal. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Total length is measured along the vertebral centra though, whereas the scale bar doesn't account for that. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:05, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

S t r e t c h , what about now, FunkMonk? I could not longer extend the neck, as it was looking like a sauropod. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think what added to the confusion is that you had a different length written on the image. It made it seem like you were going for that unpublished length. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The actual axial length of this reconstruction is approximately 3.7 meters. Also, the skull looks a little small—the basal skull length in this reconstruction is only around 23 cm, whereas the Theropod Database lists it as 23.7 cm. Sure, that's only a 3% difference, but it's something, and might help explain a portion of why it seems undersized. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yuanmousaurus Size Comparison

Seems like it's a bit longer here than Paul estimated. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I see from the description that most of the neck is not preserved. Maybe some leeway there? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems that Holtz estimate a length of 15-20m, so the length actually should be okay, I guess. I should have thought of looking there earlier. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Iguanodon life restorations

Iguanodon life restoration

Saving the best till last. None of these images have an inaccurate tag on commons. While working on improving the Iguanodon article, I came to realise that we do not have a high-quality Iguanodon restoration on wikicommons. While obviously the 19th century images and the Azerbaijan stamp are hilariously inaccurate and need commons tags, I would also like to hear comments on Nobu Tamura's images, I know that these are under deletion discussion anyway, but they look proportionally a bit off to me. The Dinosaur isle model also looks to have an odd angle for the tail. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I think NT's images are fine (see DR discussion). As for the first image, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be "Dollodon". By the way, probably best for saving space if the images are put in a gallery.FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, as for the proportions of the NT images, if the wrong proportions can be pointed out, I can try to correct the best one. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Gorgosaurus

A nice restoration, as I see based on the skeletal of Henrique Paes (randomdinos). I don't see anything wrong with it, but I put it here regardless.

That high nasal ridge seems like too much speculation. And the fact that it is almost just a black silhouette and has no details makes it useless compared to images we have already. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

If you're watching it on a phone, put the brightness to the max. You can see that it's partly dark blue instead of being completely black then. Also, the brown restoration cureently used in the Gorgosaurus article has a too extensive feather coat.

This is way too dark. I'm viewing this on a computer and I cannot see anything but black. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Weird, I saw it as being more dark blue than black when I watched it on my computer.

I agree the size of the nasal ridge is a little too speculative and that it's overall too dark. The eye also looks too large. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Stegosaurus size comparison

Stegosaurus size comparison made. Im not really sure about s. ungulatus plates size and arrangement any comments?KoprX (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The tail tip seems undermuscled and I think that the tail may be too short. The legs, head & neck look like they were just taken from the Hartman skeletal, so their posture should be changed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Posture and musculature changed and yes tail was too shortKoprX (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I think that the tail may actually be a little too long now. Also, Stegosaurus had a huge number of tiny osteoderms on the underside of its neck. These seem to have formed a sort of shallow dewlap, so there should probably be more flesh under the jaw. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh I completely missed those osteoderms, tail fixedKoprX (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've been working on some Stegosaurus silhouettes myself, and I discovered that S. ungulatus apparently had considerably longer hindlimbs than S. stenops. For plate arrangement, I followed Paul's skeletal for plate shape and rearranged them so the corresponding plates were in the same positions as S. stenops. The elbows of both could do with being a bit more flexed as well, right now they're uncomfortably ramrod straight. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I also find S.ungulatus to have longer hindlimbs but i didn't know exactly how much longer. I did this feature more prominent. For plate shape i used GetAwayTrike's skeletal but it seems that he uses Paul's too so I think it looks fine. I rearranged plates to correspond with stenops. Finally elbows fixed.KoprX (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure the long hindlimbs are genuine and not a carryover from pre-Sophie work? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but S. ungulatus does preserve considerable amounts of hindlimb material, in addition to vertebrae, so I think that this trait is probably genuine, at least to some extent. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Angolatitan

Going to start working on a skeletal and life restoration for Angolatitan, since it's the only dinosaur known from Angola so far and the article has no images. What should I base the reconstruction on? I'm rather unfamiliar with sauropods, but from what I'm getting from the article it should be something between the likes of Brachiosaurus and Euhelopus? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It's closely related to Chubutisaurus, and Asier Larramendi's skeletal of Chubutisaurus doesn't seem too problematic at a glance [7]. Andesaurus, Ligabuesaurus, and Sauroposeidon are also probably fairly close relatives. Brachiosaurus/Giraffatitan is also worth referencing, but I'd be cautious about basing it off of Euhelopus, because some studies find it to be a basal macronarian and there was an SVP abstract recently indicating it may be a mamenchisaurid. I'm not sure what you should base the head on. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The most phylogenetically appropriate skull would probably be Sarmientosaurus regardless of its taxonomic position, because of its largely intermediate morphology between brachiosaurs and other titanosaurs. It still has the nasal projection and a flat maxillary ventral edge, and the skull isn't controversial like Malawisaurus. Otherwise the best bet would be an edit of either Euhelopus or Brachiosaurus to fit the maxilla of "Paluxysaurus" and the posterior skull of Phuwiangosaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of selected giant sauropods

Recently I updated Argentinosaurus(based on https://www.skeletaldrawing.com/sauropods-and-kin/patagotitan) and Xinjiangtitan(based on https://www.deviantart.com/yty2000/art/Xinjiangtitan-shanshanensis-825885976). How do they look? Edit: You probably need to zoom in becouse the Xinjiangtitan hasn't loaded yet for some reasonKoprX (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Spinosaurus also updated

KoprX both images look nice, my one comment would be that the baby Spinosaurus should probably have slightly different proportions (longer skull, shorter sail) based on other theropods growth, but that is it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

KoprX, sorry to bring this up so late in the game, but I think that Dropzink's Diplodocus is a trace over a copyrighted Hartman skeletal. Hartman's newer silhouette is available under CC BY 3.0, though: [8]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:40, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I already modified Dropzink's Diplodocus so it looks more like Hartman's skeletal silhouette. Both of artist are credited.KoprX (talk) 19:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Huinculsaurus Size Comparison

Turns out that a skeletal for this guy did exist, so I did the scaling based on it. Once approved, I'll add this to my Huincul faunal chart. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Mussaurus Size Comparison

Time for a sauropodomorph size comparison! The "smallest dinosaur ever" grew up awhile ago (older popular dinosaur books will quite happily state that this and Psittacosaurus are the smallest known dinosaurs). ~6.5m is nothing to sneeze at for a basal sauropodomorph, either! Anyways, the smaller individuals are still pretty darn small, and are a bit difficult to discern in this image. Any ideas on how to solve that problem or any other input? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Inset with a different scale bar? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

https://www.deviantart.com/randomdinos/art/Mussaurus-patagonicus-schematic-729927832

Spinosauridae size chart

The above discussion on the Erilikosaurus skeletal reminded me that I have some concerns with Vallibonavenatrix's inclusion in this size chart. When I mentioned to Eotyrannu5 that there aren't any published estimates for it, he said that he based its length on measurements of the known fossils from its description paper. However, that means he's still the one deciding how to apply those measurements and extrapolate the animal's possible length (presumably based on related taxa to fill in the gaps), which definitely crosses the WP:OR boundary. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely all length estimates are specimen specific and approximate? As long as there is a note saying that the length is approximate and the length isn't considered defintive, I don't think it's a violation of OR. Ultimately something has to give, otherwise we just end up in a quagmire. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the main difference here is that we do have length estimates for Erliko, therefore making them up ourselves isn't justified. I guess there are no published estimates for this dinosaur, but if we make up an estimate, we should state this clearly, and what other genus the proportions are based on. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Unrelated comment: It would be nice if the tips of the tails of the spinosaurids could be seen to better indicate their length. Pinging the author's new account (Eotyrannu5-2) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Flipping the order of the taxa might be a way to do it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Something else I just noticed, Irritator and Vallibonavenatrix appear to be traced from the spinosaurine silhouettes by Aureliano et al. (2019)[9], which is not a free paper.[10] Though perhaps with Irritator it's not too big a concern since it uses a different pose. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:45, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The Spinosaurus is very similar to Franoy's silhouette as well, something I brought up the previous time around. Eotyrannu5 excused it as being a difficult taxon to pose convincingly, but surely the animal could be easily depicted at a different point in the walk cycle, with the neck more extended, the jaws opened/closed further, the arm more forewards, the tail posed differently, etc.? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting a bit out of hand... I've also now noticed that the Baryonyx is directly traced from British Palaeontology's skeletal on DeviantArt.[11] ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 04:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, Eotyrannu5 is British Palaeontology, so the Baryonyx is okay, I think. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is true, and I am also certain we have discussed the silhouettes before and came to the conclusion they were not copyvios. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

The Vallibonavenatrix one is definitely an exact trace though (again from a non-free paper), so it should at least use a different pose. The comment by FunkMonk above also makes me wonder about the implications, does this mean we're allowed to extrapolate our own size estimates now for scale diagrams if there aren't any? As long as we clearly state what we based them on, like with the life restorations? Seems like a bit of a slippery slope... But then again, one could argue that similar issues may apply to user-made skeletals, which are similarly technical and often involve reconstructing missing bones based on relatives. So as long as the references used are clearly stated, I guess it shouldn't be a problem. However, it should probably be clarified in the diagram that the estimate pertains to that particular specimen. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Looking more closely, there are some noticable differences between the one hera and the papers. The back is almost sail-less, the arm is retissued while still in the same pose, the tail is lengthened and the neck is more natural. I can't tell if the leg has been modified, and the lack of change for the skull makes sense because of its completeness, so it would be quite hard to tell whether it is a unique silhouette in the same pose or the old silhouette but with several tissue changes. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What I said about size estimates certainly isn't any kind of guideline (was more like saying it's better to base on related animals than contradicting published estimates), I think we should actually have a talk page discussion about this; what to do with size comparisons and skeletal diagrams when such haven't been published for a given animal before... And then work out a policy we can add to the top of the page. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

So, I've seen Eotyrannu5 being accused of plagiarizing skeletals, but I know that he's under the names of AlternatePrehistory and BritishPaleontology on Deviantart, and he makes skeletals and uploads them there, so I've (I think reasonably) assumed that his Carcharodontosauridae and Spinosauridae skeletals were based on his own, yet unpublished skeletals, escepially because I've seen noticeable differences compared to the skeletals of Francisco Bruňén (Franoys), Henrique Paes (randomdinos) and Scott Hartman when looking at the silhouettes of his Carcharodontosauridae size comparison, and less so, but still noticeable differences when looking at the silhouettes of his Spinosauridae size comparison.

Right, at this point you may as well remove the image, I've lost the original file when my hard drive was corrupted and I'm not willing to make another as I have other priorities outside of wikipedia and having much of an online presence. Also seems that this whole thread has been accusing me of plagiarism (of my own skeletals with some) and I don't have the time to deal with any of this right now. I suggest using another Spinosaurid chart, because I do not have the time or patience to go through with making another. Eotyrannu5-2 (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Ankylosaurus, Edmontonia and Suaropelta

So an IP has brought these to our attention, and I thnk they look quite nice. The only real issue is that the Ankylosaurus tail may be too short since it looks to be based on the old Carpenter skeletal, but perhaps someone else knows better whether it is actually wrong. The Edmontonia can probably be cropped to remove some whitespace easily. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems to be based on the Arbour studies, because it has two cervical half rings. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the Ankylosaurus is based on the Getawaytrike skeletal.

As nice looking as they are, I have to raise the issue that the colouration for both the Ankylosaurus and Sauropelta has been directly lifted from from works by Jack Wood[12][13]. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 16:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, I was halfway through formulating a far more verbose response with exactly the same message. I'm not too upset personally as it's not like this damages me from a career or reputation perspective, but it is still pretty blatant plagiarism, which I'm sure none of us are exactly fond of. --Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 16:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's similar, but it's not completely the same.

Seriously? You're going to question the judgment of the artist concerning plagiarism of their own work? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:11, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I guess technically they're right. It's not completely the same. But I'm confident enough in the judgement of most of the users involved in this project that no argument needs to be had regarding the obvious degree of similarity. The question becomes whether or not it's acceptable. I'd rather they were changed as a matter of principle - I'd not be happy if another artist's work had been used like this without expressed permission. Ultimately though I don't care enough to argue over it, so if the majority opinion opposes my own then I won't lose any sleep. --Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I doubt the uploader will bother responding here, but one thing we could do easily is to change the colours in Photoshop with the hue options. Changing the pattern would be major work, though. The reds are obviously based on Borealopelta, but there is no reason to believe all ankylosaurs would necessarily be reddish. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Another problem (if I recall policy correctly): the original artwork appears on DeviantArt under a non-free license. Note that the uploader has the same username (although impersonation is not a novel phenomenon around these parts). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Multiple licenses are allowed as long as the artist has decided them. But yeah, though unlikely, it could be a fake account. In any case, I think we should try to get the uploader to respond here, some of their other works have also been reviewed, and some anatomical issues have been pointed out that should be fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

These illustrations appear to be direct traces over skeletal diagrams. I believe that that may be problematic. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

It appears the originals have also been uploaded, any thoughts?[14][15] FunkMonk (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I uploaded the originals initially to use as examples in response to this post but DrawingDinosaurs responded faster than I could. Truthfully I forgot to take them down but seeing as I lack the time to follow up on the plagiarism I figure I might as well leave them on commons.--Jack Mayer Wood (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Cool, yeah, that's also the best way to battle plagiarism, to get the originals to replace the imitators. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Amanzia life restoration

Does anyone have an opportunity to make a life restoration of the basal eusauropod (possible turiasaur) Amanzia greppini using the Photo of the Amanzia type material?70.175.133.224 (talk) 04:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

I don't think that's a good reference, there's a skeletal reconstruction in the paper, and I'm pretty sure the images there are CC licensed and can be used here. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I have uploaded and added the image to the article Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice! The hind feet look pretty odd, don't they? Should the toes and metatarsals be as flat on the ground, or rather be raised by foot pads? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

They should probably be more upright and pad-bearing indeed. In addition, the manus look much too small to me and some of the overall posture looks a bit wonky. The skeletal could definitely do with some significant adjustments or replacement if anyone's up for doing the work. I might try doing a life reconstruction, but apropos of my artist's block on that Dryptosaurus and a bad cold I make no promises. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The unknown regions are currently based on Camarasaurus, but wouldn't Turiasaurus, Mierasaurus, Moabosaurus, and if all else fails Atlasaurus be better models based on Amanzia' phylogenetic position? This also seems to be another case of a skeletal in a paper have a very roughly shaped soft-tissue outline (Xingxiulong is another example of this happening). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say it should be based on Turiasaurus, Mierasaurus, Moabosaurus, and to a lesser extent Jobaria perhaps. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I've also noticed that the arms seem to be bending the wrong way in the skeletal... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Convolosaurus life restoration

User Петр Меньшиков uploaded a 3D model of Convolosaurus marri to Wikimedia Commons and asked me to help him send this image for review. We have no reconstruction in an article about this dinosaur and it would be nice to have it, since it is known for several complete fossil skeletons. --HFoxii (talk) 05:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is nice to have. I'm very much not sold on the green, though. It's an implausible colour choice if you want to express it through filamentous protofeathers. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The overall proportions look nice, but the fingers are kind of wonky/underdeveloped. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Aquilarhinus

This was uploaded to the Aquilarhinus page without review. Overall it looks good to me but I'm not the best when it comes to hadrosaurs so lemme know what you guys think! Also, it's awesome to see that a lot of artists I've seen/know on Instagram have been putting up their art on Wikipedia! I'll put up a PSA-ish thing up on there though to try to inform as many people as possible of the palaeoart review pages though. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hm, the hands don't look quite right. The unguals are too pointed and there seem to be too many of them (fourth and fifth digits in particular!); I think there should also generally just be more flesh on the hands. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:19, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The hind leg also looks weird, like it is both turned towards the viewer, but also towards the head. Is that the knee joint pointing right at the camera? Also, aren't the individual scales way too large? FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Dilong

This image is in the Dilong page but has not been reviewed yet. Those exposed teeth should probably be removed. The feet look problematic too. Also, is this[16] Dilong reconstruction by Nobu Tamura accurate? If so, it could be added to Wikimedia. Kiwi Rex (talk) 14:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The debate on lips isn't settled, so lipless dinosur images are just as fine as lipped dinosaur images. The most recent peer-reviewed papers are actually on the side of liplessness (Mark Witton's opinion is just a blog post (not peer-reviewed), and the 2016 paper had a faulty logic, since multiple species today have their canine teeth sticking out without them becoming dehydrated): https://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6204/1613 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03671-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44942 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sJOR1kR8dQ --- WTJP sockpuppet

Several things. Your first source was talking about Spinosaurus, which has a higher-than-average density of neurovascular foramina, and even then it doesn't mention integumentary implications. The second source also has no opinion on lips and at least one of its authors (Naish) is pro-lips. The last two sources are by Carr, who is admittedly against lips, but on weak grounds such as poorly-constrained phylogenetic bracketing. It's disingenuous to claim that the only thing supporting lips is the hypothesis that they help with hydration. Lips are generally more likely considering osteological correlatures, even if rare exceptions do exist. The debate is not fully resolved but a pro-lips consensus does seem to be present among paleontologists. These kinds of endless discussions are tiresome and we don't want to restart them. Since you're a new user who probably started editing just to complain about lips, I'll give you some advice: Don't repeat old weak arguments which we've heard a million times, make sure your sources actually support your opinion, learn proper link formatting, and sign your comments. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Mark Witton just stated his opinion, nothing more, nothing less. He hasn’t gone through the same necessary steps like Carr did. Carr’s paper went through peer review process and was published through scientific literature. Witton’s observations and statements have not gone thought he same amount of peer review/scrutiny and never made it to scientific journals. His post is just a blog post, so unless (and until) he goes through exact same steps, it is simply just another person’s opinion. Other paleontologists just seem to ignore this fact for some reason. --- WTJP sockpuppet

I should probably not feed the troll, but whatever. The text of the Carr paper says two things about tyrannosaur skin: it involves flat scales and crocodilian-like sensory organs. Witton also thinks it has flat scales, and various papers confirm the sensative nature of theropod facial tissue. But neither of these contrast with an interpretation with lips. Carr is personally anti-lips based on arguments which have not been formally published (phylogenetic bracketing), so saying that lipless tyrannosaurs is a peer-reviewed argument and that lips are not is misleading. The illustration provided with Carr's paper does portray Carr's interpretations of tyrannosaur integument, but these interpretations are not discussed and many people have noted that the illustration seems more like a diagram than an accurate life restoration. Seriously, I know you have low moral standards due to your disruptive editing and sockpuppeting, but please don't bog down this image review process with half-truths and misleading arguments. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

"but these interpretations are not discussed" They're discussed in the video.

Shame I wasn't talking about a non-peer reviewed video from some random irate awesomebro. Thanks for giving us another IP to ban, sockpuppet. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

But it's Carr who explains why the restoration looks kinda weird. And sure, the guy who made the video is an awesomebro because he doesn't think that every dinosaur was feathered and/or lipped...

Ooh, another one.Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, WTJP, you're doing us a public service here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not a new user! It's the latest IP sockpuppet of one-trick pony User:WelcometoJurassicPark. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

NT's image is under a non-commercial license. We cannot use it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

His newer uploads say this, though: "All illustrations on this site are copyrighted to Nobu Tamura. The low resolution versions of the images are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license meaning that you are free to use them as long as you properly credit the author (© N. Tamura). High resolution versions are available upon request. Questions: contact me at nobu dot tamura at yahoo dot com." So I would assume that is retroactive, but I guess wed have to ask him. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Amargatitanis Skeletal Diagram

Not the promised Brachytrachelopan, but much more straightforwards by far. Suuwassea was used as the basis for the silhouette, and, along with Linwulong, helped to fill in for the unknown material. The holotype of Brachytrachelopan is not described in as much detail as that of Suuwassea, Amargatitanis, or ~~Lingwulong~~Dicraeosaurus, and this is the only photograph of it that I could find: [17]. It's difficult to interpret, so it may take awhile (though I aim to complete it by the end of March). Comments on either dicraeosaurid? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:20, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Amarga is fine theres really not much to comment on. As far as Brachy, yeah thats really all that there is so its one of the more problematic taxa. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The cnemial crest of Amargatitanis is differently shaped and more complete than you depict it. Only the distal margin of the cnemial crest is incomplete; its low and elongate shape is a genuine feature shared with other dicraeosaurids other than Suuwassea. Other than that I don't see anything that you should change. Ornithopsis (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Done. I'll add this to the article now, seeing as it is currently lacking images. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

You still don't have it quite right, IMO. As far as I can tell, the margin of the cnemial crest is essentially complete except distally--there shouldn't be any greyed-out region at all anterior to it. See this: [18] Ornithopsis (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Is this more like it? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of Amargatitanis, how accurate is this image by Levi bernardo? The hindlimbs immediately strike me as extremely skinny, based on my skeletal the tibia just barely fits inside the shin. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The left leg looks potentially thin for with musculature, but the bone itself seems to fit alright. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Dicraeosauridae Size Comparison

At last!

I've given the dicraeosaurid size chart an overhaul based on the skeletals that I did for 4 of the 6 taxa. Lingwulong and Amargasaurus also got overhauls and new heads based on Bajadasaurus. How does it look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Small Morrison Formation theropod size comparison

The Morrison coelurosaur size comparison diagram should be updated to include the recently described troodontid Hesperornithoides, and it might also have to include the ceratosaur Fosterovenator because the latter genus is clearly a small ceratosaur possibly related to Elaphrosaurus judging from the fact that Dalman (2014) erroneously classifies Ceratosauridae under Carnosauria and accidentally assigned Fosterovenator to Ceratosauridae, when he meant to assign the genus to Ceratosauria incertae sedis.

Dalman, S.G. (2014). New data on small theropod dinosaurs from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Como Bluff, Wyoming, USA. Volumina Jurassica. 12 (2): 181–196.70.175.134.8 (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Ah yes, this old chart. I've really got to update it. Here's a list of everything needed that I can see:

Stokesosaurus: Not too bad, although the feet and ankles could use some more work, and the axial column's not too good. Since I added fuzz to my Timurlengia, this should also be fuzzy.
Tanycolagreus: Not bad, but not good either. The legs look weird, the arm's weird, the rest is subpar. Needs fuzz.
Coelurus: Not too bad, but could use an overhaul with a boxier skull (following Tanycolagreus). Needs fuzz.
Ornitholestes: Pretty poor - metatarsal orientation, leg shape, arms, flesh on fingers, and some other soft tissue details all off. Also - needs fuzz (I'm detecting a recurring theme here...).
Hesperornithoides: Good but conspicuously absent.

These fixes are rather extensive, so they may take awhile, but I should be able to have them done by the first week of November. Fosterovenator is far too ambiguous for a size comparison currently, and it doesn't seem to be a coelurosaur, so it's outside of the chart's scope. Thanks for reminding me to work on this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Noasaurids are also small theropods, so you could restore Fosterovenator as an elaphrosaurine noasaurid (the paratype of Fosterovenator has been removed from Ceratosauria by Skawinski et al. 2017) because noasaurids are almost about the same size as Stokesosaurus and Tanycolagreus.70.175.134.8 (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

The image is specifically about coelurosaurs (see file name). FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Ornitholestes

Tanycolagreus

Hesperornithoides

Here's the first step in the update - Ornitholestes. It's still based on Hartman's skeletal. I've given it fuzz this time, and added long filaments for wings on the arm (seeing as it's basal to Compsognathidae). I'm wondering if the long advanced tail feathers were a bad idea - I might go back and change that. The posture is sort of intended to show a hesitant step. Are the feet too chunky? Has anything else gone wrong? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:51, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Here are the other two updated individual size charts. Any comments before the main image is updated (Coelurus & Stokesosaurus are both ready) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

My only comment is that the forward weight shift of the Ornitholestes would imply the other foot is farther forwards than it is in the diagram. The rest of the elements look fine. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Which foot do you mean by the other foot? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess it would be the right foot. Looks somewhat imbalanced with it being raised like that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Does this look better? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I've updated the main image, any thoughts? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Phu Wiang spinosaurid

Since I recently got back to my expansion of Siamosaurus for GA and FA, here's a skeletal reconstruction for a series of caudal vertebrae from the Khok Kruat Formation, possibly belonging to that genus. Based on photographs from Adun Samathi (2019)[19]. Let me know if there's anything I need to fix! Especially since I'm still rather inexperienced with skeletals. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

What are the unknown regions based on? It would be good to cite that. Also, the snout seems to be really shallow at its front. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Based the silhouette on Baryonyx and Spinosaurus - added citations for that. Also made the lower jaw less shallow, though still keeping the snout relatively low since the specimen was small and likely represented a juvenile/subadult individual, which, given what we know about theropods (including other spinosaurs) in that age range, would have had a more gracile snout. Also made the text a bit bigger and cropped the image a little. Are the updates better? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Concavenator

These two Concavenator life restorations have not been reviewed. Both have sunken fenestrae. Could this be fixed somehow?Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The overall anatomy of the Nobu restoration (especially around the tail, hips, legs and feet) is rather wonky, which seems to be a common issue with his older illustrations. On the second image the toes of the left foot are curved in a weird, sort of distorted way. Also, not sure if it's just me but the fingers on that one also look like they're backwards? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The toes on the near foot of the second image aren't just curved strangely, they're arranged so that digits III & IV wouldn't sit flat on the ground! I think the fingers, wrist and forearm are a bit shrunken and lacking in flesh, and honestly look a little mangled. Comparing it to this skeletal suggests that a lot is off proportionally (Concavenator is by no means a poorly known taxon, and recently it's been thoroughly described in the literature, all the detailed new stuff being paywalled unfortunately). The NT image's wonkiness isn't helped by the weird perspective, with the torso being in posterolateral view, the knee in lateral view, and the left foot in posterior view. Not sure about those huge spines either. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

We also have so many restorations of this genus now that we can afford to just tag these as inaccurate and leave it at that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

None of the restorations we have for Concavenator reflect the proportions of the randomdinos skeletal though, so they're all inaccurate. The Daniel Vidal restoration could become accurate with a few tweaks, and would even look better than if we were to tweak the other restorations we have.

Revision request: Rinchenia

With Lythronax and Ichthyovenator both at FAC, our theropod navbox has come under some scrutiny. While trying to verify our Rinchenia against the holotype as figured in Fuston et al. (2017), I noticed that the crest seems too short: [20] This is a bit concerning, as the genus is diagnosed by (among other things) a "tall, domed cranial crest composed primarily of nasals"... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Should be an easy fix, working on it. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, crest height has been increased. Interestingly, I noticed that it used to be taller in Dinoguy2's previous version[21]. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, noticed that as well. Looks good, thanks! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Note that there are also these two compilations which would have to be fixed too:[22][23] FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, working on it. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Size charts and missing attribution and/or copyvio

One thing that I've always attempted to do when making size charts is to make original silhouettes (except that one time when I used a PD silhouette for Anchiceratops). I know that not everyone does this, and it is rather common for the silhouettes of others to be used in these sorts of diagrams. This is perfectly okay as long as the silhouettes are correctly licensed and properly attributed. However, this is not always the case, so I thought that it would be good to bring up some cases of size charts that are missing attribution or contain copyvio. I appologize in advance if I've made any errors here. Also, I'm sure that these are not the only ones. Feel free to add any more that you find. Also note that many of these size charts have multiple iterations uploaded as different files. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Missing Attribution

Silhouette (except brow horns) from File:Triceratops BW.jpg

I messed up the dates on the Apatosaurus size chart. Sorry about that. False alarm, apparently. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyvio

Sauroposeidon & Maraapunisaurus taken from Carpenter (2006), Supersaurus & Diplodocus taken from Hartman
Silhouette taken from Hartman
Patagotitan from Carballido et. al. (2017)
Tyrannosaurus taken from Hartman, Giganotosaurus from Paul, Carcharodontosaurus & Mapusaurus from Sinkkonen
Tyrannosaurus from Hartman again
Silhouette taken from Hartman

Ah, just noticed this secrtion,and fixed the Triceratops description. The others might be more complicated, since they are not all based on free images... FunkMonk (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Australovenator

More unreviewed avetheropod images. This time it's Australovenator.Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Why does it look like that? So blurry...
This one was taken from a paper about Australovenator's forearm range of motion. Is the rest of the image accurate?
Crocodile-like armour?
This model seems to be based on the two previous reconstructions (or the opposite).
This is the 3D model used in those reconstructions.
From a different artist than the rest, skull and torso look small

As most of these images originated in peer-reviewed sources, they probably don't, strictly speaking, need to be reviewed. Nonetheless, that doesn't stop us from reviewing them if we want to. I don't see anything obviously outright incorrect in these images, though I'm hardly a fan of some of the artistic choices made. The "crocodile-like armor" could plausibly be interpreted as a Carnotaurus-like situation. Maybe the shape of the nostril needs work. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The Muttaburrasaurus is also depicted with a similar integument. That's not what the skin of other ornithopods look like.Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with critiquing megaraptorid reconstructions is that much of the overall anatomy (especially of the skull) and proportions are unknown due to the fact that a mostly complete skeleton hasn't been found for any members of the group, though this will likely change in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashley Patch has a skeletal for Australovenator, it looks quite different to any of these but it's probably the best we've got. If you want to play it safe, you should probably get a new reconstruction going based on it: https://www.deviantart.com/plastospleen/art/Australovenator-wintonensis-Skeletal-2018-Version-771696264 --TKWTH (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There is another skeletal by "getawaytrike"[24]. Which one seems more appropriate?Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

GetAwayTrike's skeletals are usually not the most reliable since he doesn't account for taphonomic distorsion a lot of the time. Some of GetAway's skeletals are better than others, but in this particular case, Patch's one definitely looks cleaner and more anatomically sound (you can see the dorsum of GetAway's Australovenator is rather bumpy and distorted for example). ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Another one exists [25] that shows similar proportions to Ashley's, but is probably just as good if not better because it incorporates the better known megaraptorans. All the material known from Australovenator (dentary, arm, hindlimb, ribs) is included. For both of these, only the original restoration appears to have the proper skull shape, and the integument is unclear enough to be acceptable. I honestly think that all but the first image here are inaccurate because of a combination of a skull that is too short and robust and massive scalation across the entire body, Ceratosaurus only has a single row along the back and Carnotaurus only has small feature scales known from the sides. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Ashley's is probably better to use because it's supposed to be Australovenator, specifically. The one IJReid linked is a generic, composite megaraptorid. --TKWTH (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes but it is a composite that includes all the known materials of Australovenator, which is just as good as Ashley's. It is up to the artist to decide, but I would consider the one I linked to be preferable if I made my own. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I struggle to understand why you'd prefer a composite megaraptoran skeletal to a skeletal depicting the specific taxon we're talking about, especially when you say they're both of equal quality. Ashley did a rigorous skeletal alongside it, and some of the material shown (and hence the material preserved) differs notably from the equivalent bones in the composite (likely because they were drawn from other taxa), rendering the composite less reliable. Your priorities are making no sense to me. This isn't even about using the skeletal in the article, it's merely a case of which one is a more reliable reference to base an Australovenator reconstruction off of. --TKWTH (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is of course also the issue that Muttaburrasaurus isn't from the same formation. But that doesn't mean similar relatives didn't co-occur, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

A look at various Triceratops restorations & models

T. rex & Triceratops models from The Journey Museum and Learning Center

T. rex & Triceratops models from The Journey Museum and Learning Center
A young big-eyed Triceratops model from Dinosaurios Park

I've decided to put up various images & restorations of Triceratops up for review, due to the surprising lack of illustrated restorations of Triceratops. There are many images of models, statues, figures & sculptures of the animal, many of which haven't been reviewed. I've only included images of models mostly from museums or zoos that could be used in an article if need be. With a few exceptions, I have not put up any images of any movie props or art pieces, like this thing for example. There's also a lot of images of the same model at different angles, but for the brevity's sake, I've only included a few. There's also the possibility that some of these images might have to be deleted for copyright or legal reasons. Monsieur X (talk) 12:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the only one that is somewhat accurate is the NT one, though I never understood why it has a concave back. All the rest have problems with either their heads or hands. And of course, the toys, as well as models in the US, France, Italy, etc. need to be deleted as copyright violations. The latter because those countries lack freedom of panorama. And that is of course also a problem for many of our other images of models. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering what that term was. In that case, the images I glossed over will also have to be checked if they're breaking any "freedom of panorama" laws. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the artwork of T. rex, Triceratops & Troodon was uploaded without the actual artist's permission. I think the images of the CG models could possibly be edited. As for the photos of the models that can be legally used, could the one's with weird feet just be cropped to removed them? Monsieur X (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The only photos of alright looking models are pretty low quality anyway[26][27][28], so it would almost be pointless. We do have enough restorations in the article anyway, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I've decided to remove all of the illustrations, 3D models & free to use images to focus on any Triceratops photo that need to be deleted due to copyright concerns. Feel free to nominate them if they haven't been nominated. Monsieur X (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I got most of the rest, apart from a few in Ialy. And there are probably hundreds of images with similar problems on Commons. But the good thing is that a lot of bad models can get weeded out this way... FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

A look at the arm of File:Acrocanthosaurus restoration.jpg

According to Acrocanthosaurus#Forelimb function

Movement at the elbow was also limited compared to humans, with a total range of motion of only 57°. The arm could not completely extend (straighten), nor could it flex (bend) very far, with the humerus unable even to form a right angle with the forearm.

Given the fact that the angle between the forearm and the humerus can never reach 90 degrees, this opens another question: is the angle less or more than 90 degrees? In the illustration mentioned above, it is more, while in others in the article it is less. The skeleton diagram that Stovall drew also depicts an acute angle. Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 17:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If you check the cited paper there is a figure that provides the answer to your exact question. 90° is relative to the long axis of the humerus. This image is fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes Is this figure 3? Looks acute to me Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 18:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That's not how it's measured. Other way around. It's obtuse. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok I saw it now. Thanks. Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 18:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

For the record, the skeletal diagram to the right is actually by Jaime Headden, not Stovall. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Gargoyleosaurus

The page for this taxon currently has no life reconstruction, I drew this one a while ago. Would it be ok to add? Jonagold2000 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks good, I wonder if the hands should be turned slightly more outwards, seems like they might be pronated. This image may give an idea:[29] FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to add some of the references you used in the image description, just for posterity. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Malawisaurus skull, potentially

I'm not entirely sure that this will end up being accepted here, so for now its available on Deviantart here [30]. I've drawn out the skull of Malawisaurus as a typical titanosaur, using all the figured material as well as a conference abstract describing characteristics of the jugal that effect the resulting snout [31]. Because it is so vastly different from the published status quo there might be an argument about it being too much Original Research to be acceptable here, but for the sake of neutrality there is a published abstract that supports the conclusions I've come to here, and this image could be used to illustrate the contrasting ideas about the skull anatomy of Malawisaurus. I shall leave it up to you whether it is supported in published literature enough or not. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt at creating a more plausible reconstruction of Malawisaurus, I do think that this falls into the category of OR in the absence of any further published information on the reinterpretation described in that abstract, or at the very least it's dangerously close to being so. I think it's best to leave it out, personally. As for some critique, in case others decide it is worth using: You show the lacrimal as unknown and depict the jugal with the same morphology described by Gomani (2005), but the main point of the abstract appears to be that the so-called jugal is, in fact, a co-ossified lacrimal and jugal. The maxilla should probably have a postdental emargination, as in most titanosauriforms. I'd advise looking into Narambuenatitan, as it preserves a premaxilla and maxilla with relatively anteriorly positioned nares, and Liaoningotitan, a basal somphospondylan with a relatively complete skull. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

On the OR issue, I think it'll be ok to have in handy once anything supporting it is published. But we should probably keep it out of article space until then. FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough theres a reason I didn't upload it first. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Mounted skeletons of Allosaurus and Abelisaurus

Can we use photos of these mounted skeletons? I have some doubts about the reliability of the skeleton of Abelisaurus comahuensis. In addition, this photo was taken from a bad angle. HFoxii (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Is that A. fragilis? Looks more like A. jimmadseni. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe. The photograph was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons before the official description of this species. HFoxii (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Wonder whether it is really supposed to be Abelisaurus itself? Here's another angle of the skeleton[32], and it is in Brazil, not Argentina. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps Pycnonemosaurus? Though the mount I found of it doesn't look quite as similar[33], especially the head, which is more rectangular in this one, and has less and larger teeth. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Is this exactly the same skeleton? In the photo [34] there is a generalized abelisaurid, isn't it? HFoxii (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure, but it doesn't look like Abelisaurus either. It was probably just labelled as an abelisaur, and then the photographer assumed it was labelled as Abelisaurus itself. I doubt there are any skeletal mounts depicting Abelisaurus, as it's only known from a skull, and Google image search of Abelisaurus skeleton only turns this photo up, oddly enough. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I had suspicions about this. What about Allosaurus? HFoxii (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem with the Allosaurus should be, other than we could try to determine the species. There are more angles of it here:[35] FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae size comparison

As one of my main projects for this year, I've started work on an illustrated size chart featuring the most completely-known tyrannosaurid species, in a similar format to the one Fred Wierum made for the dromaeosauridae article[36], since I figured I'd be nice to have a good comparison of the "main" tyrannosaur taxa to highlight their differences in size and morphology. And also because I'd like to make up for ditching my attempted vector chart from 2018[37], which I may also revitalise work on. Anyways, here's the first batch of sketches I've got so far! They were made relatively quickly, so let me know if they're up to scratch before I start detailing and colouring them in. As for which animals I'll be including in the final chart, here's the list I've worked up:

I've left out the more fragmentary taxa (Dynamoterror, Nanuqsaurus, Zhuchengtyrannus, and Thanatotheristes), other species (Daspletosaurus horneri, Alioramus altai), as well as the controversial Nanotyrannus. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 05:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: The smaller species will have partial feathers. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 10:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be the best to base as many on the skeletals of Franoys and randomdinos as possible (T. rex, Tarbosaurus and Daspletosaurus based on Franoys, Gorgosaurus and Albertosaurus based on randomdinos), unlike how it is now.

If you're referring to my old vector chart, only the Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus are based on GetAwayTrike, which I'll agree is not the most reliable source for skeletals (he tends to not account for taphonomic distorsion very well). The rest are all based on Franoys, except for the T. rex, which is based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. Anyways, I've taken that chart off the gallery and linked it instead, since it's not the focus of this section. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that there's anything wrong with basing the Tyrannosaurus (or Daspletosaurus, for that matter) on Hartman's skeletal (the former, after all, was published in a peer-reviewed paper and is currently in the Tyrannosaurus article). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 14:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, if anything, skeletals from published authors should have priority. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Update: Qianzhousaurus is now feathered, coloured, and detailed! Let me know your thoughts on it. Next I'll be finishing Alioramus. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 01:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Could the feathers be green? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, now that I think about it, I'm not sure. No green feathers in non-avian dinosaurs are known thus far in the fossil record, but I'm not sure if it's impossible. We'll need input from someone more familiar with the matter, since I'm not having much luck finding articles/papers about it so I'm probably not looking in the right place. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 02:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, structural coloration like iridescence in the feathers of birds is a product of the barbs and barbules on the feathers. On the basis of bracketing, this would not be possible for "stage 1" protofeathers that lack this structure (and melanosomes alone cannot produce a green colour), but I don't know if there are further physical constraints that rule out iridescence completely. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:30, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

In that case, I changed the colours for a more plausible brown and yellow to avoid anything contentious. I'll add this to the article if there's no further comment. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 09:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Looks nice, but I wonder whether some of these might have the same issue as mentioned for Chilantaisaurus above, that the femur couldn't rotate backwards past a 90 degree angle? FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeouch, apparently so. Good to know that! I'll definitely keep an eye for it in my reconstructions from now on. It'll be rather tedious adjusting the left leg on the Qianzhousaurus, but I'll get to it as soon as I can. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 17:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Alrighty, was kinda lazy with this for a while but finally fixed the pose on Qianzhousarus (might need to clear cache to see the change since it's a heavy image), lemme know if it looks good. Will start work on Alioramus tomorrow. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Feather cladogram

The page feathered dinosaur uses this 2015 cladogram which is clearly outdated. Ceratosauria is represented with a Coelophysis silhouette, the pachycephalosaur is misshapen, the ornithomimosaur lacks wings, the heterodontosaurid silhouette lacks the filaments it is said to have (see Tianyulong), Enigmosauria exists, and it gives the wrong impression that several groups are known to be featherless even though they are not (some of these have not even been found with scale impressions).

It would probably be better to just use a new cladogram instead of fixing this one, maybe from Yang et al. (2018)[38] or Benton et al. (2019)[39]. Is it possible to upload any of these cladograms to Wikimedia or are there copyright impediments? If there are any, perhaps a new cladogram could be made using these as reference (I tried Wikipedia's own cladogram-making feature, but the result is probably not very adequate for the article). And are there any issues with them?Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, neither of those papers are CC, so we cannot use their figures. Coloring text in cladograms is not out of the realm of possibility (see Mierasaurus). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't use just anything, either we make a new one from scratch, or modify this one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the problem with the silhouettes by replacing the bad ones with images already in Wikimedia Commons, and removed the scale icon from Pachycephalosauria and Megalosauroidea. I also think it would be useful to replace the scale icon in Carnosauria with a feather icon and an interrogation mark, but I'm not sure if this is really a good idea. If Concavenator really has quill knobs (maybe not), they would indicate pennaceous feathers (remiges), wouldn't they? Also, Ceratopsia could be replaced with just Psittacosaurus because we don't know whether those tail bristles were present in ceratopsids or not.Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The cladogram is missing Kulindadromeus, which is a bigger problem, it's also missing Hadrosauridae which we know has scales. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Update: I redid the whole thing. The phylogeny is based on Benton et al. (2019) and might disagree with other studies. The assignment of only one integument to each group is a little simplified (see Yang et al. (2018)) but not too much. The silhouettes were made from works of various Wikipedia users and they are all accurate as far as I know. Sciurumimus stills lacks a silhouette. Any further suggestions to improve this? And is this fit for the article? Kiwi Rex (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I would personally place a question mark on the phylogenetic position of Sciurumimus as while the authors claim that it is a basal tetanuran (and still do as of this year per "Two of a Feather: A Comparison of the Preserved Integument in the Juvenile Theropod Dinosaurs Sciurumimus and Juravenator from the Kimmeridgian Torleite Formation of Southern Germany"), the specimen is a juvenile and its placement is not considered certain, and other authors have suggested alternative placements within Coelurosauria. In particular a long section on the taxon is given in the supplementary material of the paper describing Hesperornithoides, which places it within the Coelurosauria though the specifics of that are probably out of the scope of this discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I feel like this diagram is a bit misleading as is: Psittacosaurus was almost entirely scaly, and bristles such as it had cannot be conclusively ruled out in any scaly dinosaur to my knowledge. Carcharodontosauria is in the wrong phylogenetic position and the only carcharodontosaur with preserved integument I'm aware of, Concavenator, is only scaly in places also scaly in Kulindadromeus. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The purpose of this cladogram is to show only the kind of integument that is known to be present in those groups, not the only type of skin covering they might have had. It does not actually rule out the presence of protofeathers in neoceratopsians, sauropods, ceratosaurs etc. - we just have not found anything but scales in those groups yet. Psittacosaurus sp. was in fact more scaly than feathered, but the cladogram used as reference is focused on the evolution of feathers and their distribution across Ornithodira, which justifies marking this species with the monofilament icon. And the position of Carcharodontosauria is not "wrong" - it is just not the most usual hypothesis, but placing Carcharodontosaurus and its closest relatives closer to birds than to Allosaurus is not at all a new thing. The Asfaltovenator description is not "wrong" for placing megalosauroids in Carnosauria either. This whole subject is much trickier than anyone wished it was. Kiwi Rex (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the missing silhouette for Sciurumimus: Phylopic images perhaps? This silhouette is listed as CC-BY 3.0: [40] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; added it. And a question mark on this taxon as suggested by Hemauchenia. Kiwi Rex (talk) 23:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Diplodocus species comparison

New version of diplodocus size comparison, is this neck posture plausible or should be change to more horizontal version?KoprX (talk) 08:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

If anything they should be more vertical to account for sacrum wedging.... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine as is. Bear in mind that short-armed sauropods such as diplodocoids and saltasaurids also had their dorsals curved downward to counter the wedging of the sacrum. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Illustrations by Antonio R. Mihaila

Asfaltovenator head portrait
Paraxenisaurus restoration
Tyrannosaurus
Gigantspinosaurus
Triceratops
Asfaltovenator, was deemed inaccurate earlier

Added to the article by the artist without review. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Should the lacrimal crests be a bit further back? I can't get it to match up: [41] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you're right, too far from the top of the postorbital. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

He also did a lot of other restorations that are ending up in articles without review:[42] I'm wondering particularly about Paraxenisaurus; it is restored with a hallux, yet Deinocheirus itself did not have one, but primitive ornithomimisaurs assigned to the group seem to do. So not sure, can't access the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Metatarsal I is not preserved but there is an attachment surface. I believe that correlates to the hallux? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Could be then. I've added his other dinosaurs here, maybe the rest of his animals should be put up at the paleoart review. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The Trike's limbs look kind of flabby and strangely shaped, especially the near hindlimb. The thigh also just seems to disappear into the torso not far above the knee. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

We also have another Asfaltovenator head, by GusTrex, looks more accurate? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Much better! I haven't checked the proportions precisely but they seem to line up well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I've replaced the previous image which had some issues. Should probably be tagged as inaccurate... The lacrimal horn on the new one seems a bit big, but who knows what keratin could have done... FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Dinosaurs Alive Exhibition at Science City Kolkata

There is an entire category at Commons under commons:Category:Dinosaurs Alive Exhibition at Science City Kolkata. I'm adding these images to the various commons:Category:Dinosaur models subcategories but I don't know if they would qualify under the inaccurate subcategory of each or not. Given the age of these images alone, I doubt these would qualify as accurate models but it's worth knowing as there are a lot of images. If there are any accurate ones, it'll liven up the articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

India appears to have FOP, so the images don't need to be deleted, however I don't really see any use case for images to be added to articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

They all look pretty inaccurate, but they have value in that they show the popularity of dinosaurs all over the world. FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Deinonychus reconstructed skeletons

These two images are considered "valued images", but the reconstruction hasn't really aged well with those pronated hands, wrong skull shape and possibly incorrect scapula.Kiwi Rex (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we should certainly avoid use them, even if they look nice. One leg is also rotated too far backwards. FunkMonk (talk)

The left mount might be useful for illustrating "Bakkerian" reconstructions of Deinonychus — same head shape and posture in all of those reconstructions. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why, but the user who posted these images is trying really hard to make sure they don't get the 'inaccurate' template.Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Have you pinged them on Commons? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I've already informed him that knowingly obstructing a project's purpose (in this case determining which images are accurate or not) might be considered vandalism unless he can provide a justification, which is unlikely. He was already informed years ago that these images are outdated and reacted by calling the other users "pranksters" and claiming the model would be corrected (it wasn't) - probably to justify removing the templates.[43] Kiwi Rex (talk) 18:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Delightful... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The user who uploaded the left image has nominated it for deletion due to the inaccurate tag. Thoughts? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's unreasonable I think. The image clearly has historical value in spite of its inaccuracy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

True. Despite likely not meeting the criteria to be considered a 'valued image', it is useful to illustrate old ideas about Deinonychus. Maybe in some article discussing the dinosaur renaissance or John Ostrom. Or even theropod anatomy (to show how much has changed).Kiwi Rex (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay then. In that case you all should let the uploader know on the deletion request: [44]. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

hello. here is a modified model of convolosaurus marri

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Петр Меньшиков (talk • contribs)

The coloration is improved for sure. FunkMonk had some concerns about the fingers? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, they still look pretty wonky. No claws and hyperextended? FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Now it is better? HFoxii (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The foot claws seem pretty mammalian? Like they don't come straight out at the front of the toes, but from above. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

And now? HFoxii (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see any difference. The toes are still separated from the metatarsals by some unknown fleshy area. On a related note, I believe the fourth toe should be around the same size as the second, while it looks markedly shorter in the model. The opposite problem occurs in the manus, where the fourth and first fingers are a bit too long. The skin is still undefined and textureless, not to mention the flat grey color is hard to see in the background. Also, the premaxilla may be too shallow and it seems to be missing its teeth. And shouldn't there be an "eagle eye" from the supraorbital? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Dysalotosaurus reconstruction

feedback? no iguanodontians had any kind of integument other than scales, correct? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

oops, I'll add scales on the other toes as well! didn't realize I forgot them until now. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hard to say, it's a small one... If fuzz is primitive for its wider clade, as indicated by Kulindadromeus and Tianyulong, I don't think it's a problem here. Seems you might have a claw on the fourth finger, the fourth and fifth fingers were probably clawless in all dinosaurs... The first toe also seems really long, and perhaps that foot is splayed too outwards? FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

okay, fixed the foot and fingers Audrey.m.horn (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

added integument, how does it look? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it looks plausible. I'm not sure what's going on with the front hand, there is like this extraneous flap at the front of the first finger? FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Pisanosaurus mertii

Петр Меньшиков (Peter Menshikov) asked me to help upload his life restoration of Pisanosaurus mertii as an ornithischian dinosaur. Perhaps featherless reconstruction would be more correct? HFoxii (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Honestly we already have two suitable Pisanosaurus reconstructions (showing both the silesaurid and ornithischian interpretations), and they're more visually appealing than this piece. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Author is going to make an animation of this model, which will also be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. In addition, the presence of feather cover in early ornithischians has no evidence. HFoxii (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Tianyulong and Kulindadromeus say otherwise. I don't personally have a problem with a featherless basal ornithischian since the integument of basal dinosaurs is not a fully resolved topic, but a filamentous covering is equally likely. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The background is too dark on this one. I can hardly see the head. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

The background can be removed after correcting all the inaccuracies. HFoxii (talk) 16:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as accuracy goes, a few things pop out to me. The "tufts" at the back of the head should be removed, the tail is very unsmooth, the leg muscles lack any sort of definition, the fingers are too thin, and the feet lack foot pads. There are a few other aspects that are questionable, like the length of the forelimbs or the prominence of the lower beak, but those aren't priorities to be changed yet. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the new version better? HFoxii (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking at it from this new angle it is clear that the beak and rest of the skull is fine, but the issues with the tail being not smooth, the fingers being thin, the feet lacking foot pads and the leg muscles lacking definition still exist. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanatotheristes

I began work on the restoration of the Thanatotheristes. The sketch is ready. Are there any errors here? Looks like there are some problems with fingers? HFoxii (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Coloration is ready. HFoxii (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The general image is alright, but there are a few issues with the skull and right foot. The foot is just too weird for me to identify what is wrong, it looks like there is foot pad on the heel but not the toes, and there is a lump on the top outside of the foot. The skull has an eye that is too large and lacks lips, the teeth are also a bit too large and too few. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to draw lips, but is something wrong with them? HFoxii (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The teeth would not be as prominent with lips present. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The leg musculature also seems somewhat undefined (especially around the shin) - here's a handy diagram. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 10:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yizhousaurus Size Comparison

With barely half an hour to spare, I've uploaded a new size comparison of a dinosaur - Yizhousaurus. This is a really strange-looking taxon (with super wide stubby hands, a massive torso, and a tiny head), so I'm not totally sure about the proportions. I filled in the missing regions with Mussaurus, resulting in taller feet. Comments? Are these proportions even accurate? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Patagotitan 2

A nice restoration, as I see based on the skeletal of Henrique Paes (randomdinos). I don't see anything wrong with it, but I put it here regardless.

Are the gigantic titanosaurs thought to have had osteoderms? FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes AFAIK. I don't have the source for it though, but maybe someone else does.

Lognkosaurs had them by way of phylogenetic bracketing with Malawisaurus and Mendozasaurus, so I have no issue with their presence. The arrangement is also fine they are sparse on the torso and tail. The neck is a bit fat for my preference but theres also the idea that sauropods had thicker necks so its within the realm of possibility. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Osteoderms are fine. Alamosaurus could reach similar sizes to Patagotitan and had osteoderms, and as IJReid said phylogenetic bracketing suggests they were present or at least possible. Better to have them than not, though either option is within the realm of possibility IMO. I personally think that the "horn-like" osteoderms are a bit of an art meme, though, FWIW. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought that the spiky osteoderms were not present in lognkosaurs, didn't Mendozasaurus just have rounded osteoderms? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

About the thickness of the neck, generally it's fine, but it looks implausibly thick under the jaw. Looks like it would have trouble rotating its head up or down. It would need to taper a bit more, unless it is supposed to represent some sort of dewlap, which seems implausible because the shading indicates the lower margin of the neck just keeps its width throughout too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough information on osteoderms to be sure. Mendozasaurus is the only definite colossosaur with preserved osteoderms, so we can't be sure whether that osteoderm anatomy is unique to Mendozasaurus or a general feature of colossosaurs. I suspect that there's more variation in the osteoderm appearance than the current nearly universally spiky trend, though. Agreed with FunkMonk on the neck. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Has the uploader been contacted? Otherwise I can fix it too, but it seems we already have usable images of that genus. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, the uploader has not made any corrections. Does he know about errors? HFoxii (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, not sure if they are even active. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me better to correct this illustration and use it instead of old. I like the old illustration, but there seems to be something wrong with the anatomy of the legs. Perhaps if we fixed it too, we could use it in the Paleoecology section. It also would be nice to identify the bipedal dinosaur in the foreground. HFoxii (talk) 02:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Several dinos, especially ornithopods

Ok, I have made several fairly simple drawings of different dinosaurs, the vast majority have not really been illustrated here for the reason that there are very few known remains of each taxon, besides they have been described and named recently. I give reasons for the fact that of certain details in the drawings, and of my project in my user sandbox. Finally, only some have managed to give enough finish, and others lack many details especially Acantholipan, Adynomosaurus and Ahshislepelta. --Levi bernardo (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments on Afromimus: the pedal unguals should be flat on the bottom and the tail should be more straightened. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Aegyptosaurus is the one I can say the most about, but it actually looks quite nice. The narrowness of the limbs matches with the known limb fossils, which are quite gracile. And the small osteoderms is good for a probable basal lithostrotian. Acanthopholipan and Adelolophus also look good to me, I can't see anything in them that pops out at me as wrong. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I doubt that Adratiklit could had such a sauropod-like neck pose. Maksim Dolgun (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Levi bernardo, any update on these? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thai spinosaurid diagrams

After lots of digging I finally managed to find enough good references to put this together: a skeletal of specimen SM-KK14 (or the "Khok Kruat spinosaurid"), potentially referable to Siamosaurus. Turns out 3D photogrammetry views and lateral view photographs with measurements of almost the entire skeleton are available on the Sirindhorn Museum Database (example[45]). I've excluded elements that were very ambiguous, didn't have good images or are unidentified bones. Full refs and citations for the material and restored/missing anatomy on the commons description page to avoid putting up a wall of text here. Let me know your thoughts! ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 22:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Nice! Not sure, but are the dorsal centra maybe placed a bit too low within the body? Can't say much specific, but seems to be higher in Hartman's Baryonyx maybe (keeping the lower neural spines into account)?[46] If they were moved up, the sail would of course be taller. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Did some comparisons with Baryonyx and Suchomimus and you're right, raised them up. Here's that size chart by the way! With the indeterminate Sao Khua Formation spinosaurid as well. Took Slate Weasel's useful tip and added a question mark on Siamosaurus. Also, to eliminate the redundancy having three very similar diagrams on the article would cause, I've decided to reduce my prior size chart and skeletal for "Phuwiang spinosaurid B" to just the illustrated vertebrae, which also makes it easier for readers to get a closer look at them. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Petrobrasaurus Size Comparison

Here's a size chart for Petrobrasaurus, the ∞^th titanosaur that no one's heard of. Unknown regions were based on Hartman's Futalognkosaurus (which should mainly be generic colossosaur parts for the major areas not covered by Petrobrasaurus), with the skull being that same weird Sarmientosaurus/Tapuiasaurus/Rapetosaurus hybrid that I typically use for lognkosaurs. It came out a over 17 m long, matching up with Holtz's 18 m estimate pretty well. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no issue with it, its coherent with its non-existence in phylogenetics and its rough morphology. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:14, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The head of colossosaurs should probably be based on Bonitasaura, the only colossosaur with any of the facial skeleton known, not on any of the others (which are generally not found to be colossosaurs). However, the one analysis to include Petrobrasaurus I'm aware of found it to be an opisthocoelicaudiine, so Alamosaurus might be a better basis than Futalognkosaurus? I trust you to have gotten the known proportions generally right, so that's the criticism I have to offer. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The skull of Bonitasaura is far less complete than Tapuiasaurus or Sarmientosaurus, and it jumps around a lot more than the latter two. Nothing to add about its phylogenetics. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Right, but it clearly shows a different skull shape from Tapuiasaurus or Sarmientosaurus. It's also much more consistently related to lognkosaurs than either of those taxa are. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It really doesn't. Only the lachrimal, frontal and dentary are known beyond the basicranium and they do not vastly differ from those of Tapuia beyond a more squared jaw, the lachrimal is even more similar to Nemegtosaurus and Tapuiasaurus than it is to Rapetosaurus or Sarmientosaurus. And for something phylogenetically unresolved like Petrobrasaurus it would be safer to use a neutral skull instead of the (largely fake) Bonitasaura reconstruction. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right that for something like Petrobrasaurus a more generic skull may be justified, and that the skull of Bonitasaura is poorly known. My bringing up Bonitasaura was in response to Slate Weasel's assertion that he bases lognkosaur skulls off of Sarmientosaurus, Nemegtosaurus, and Tapuiasaurus. I see no reason for Sarmientosaurus to be in the equation there, for one. I think it's important to take into consideration what's known of Bonitasaura and Antarctosaurus when depicting colossosaurs. I'm not saying it has to look exactly like Gallina and Apesteguía's reconstruction. Also, the lacrimal of Bonitasaura looks more like that of Rapetosaurus than that of Nemegtosaurus, but it does indeed look even more like that of Tapuiasaurus. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I've revised the skull a bit to make the snout deeper, since that was mainly based on Sarmientosaurus. Also, don't Antarctosaurus and Quetecsaurus preserve parts of the facial skeleton? Granted, Antarctosaurus isn't much help, and Quetecsaurus is even worse... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

New Archaeopteryx

The Archaeopteryx image by Nobu Tamura was reviewed in Talk:Archaeopteryx/Archive_2 and deemed inaccurate due to forelimb position (and the color). Monsieur X recently uploaded a new version but the inaccuracy template is still there. Should it be removed or are there any other problems? By the way, the study by Carney et al. (2011) analysed the lone feather (the original A. lithographica) instead of what is now considered the holotype or one of its conspecific/congeneric skeletons. According to Kaye et al. (2019)[47], that feather is likely not Archaeopteryx. Kiwi Rex (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I was going to re-edit the image at some point as I did notice some faults with the edits I made. The wings fingers being one. I forgot about it until now, maybe I became disinterested or frustrated at the small size & JPEG compression of the image? Monsieur X (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Megalosaurus

I have continued work on updating my Megalosaurus skeletal. Here is the current WIP: [48]. The metatarsals were scaled after Torvosaurus, the tibia after Afrovenator. Yellow material comes from Torvosaurus, otherwise color is admittedly fairly meaningless right now. How does this look? How should I scale the scapulocoracoid? Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Is this ultimately intended to be an improved version of Figure 1 from Benson 2010? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes (and this old thing!) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Ah heck, I got the pubis and ischium in backwards! I'll fix that tomorrow... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe MWAK, who wrote much of the article, has something to day? FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

- It's a difficult and tricky undertaking... I'd say: when in doubt, keep the elements robust. The scapulocoracoid would of course have to fit between the back and the ventral line of the thorax, roughly known from the pubic bone. Inserting it under an angle of about 45° should provide an impression of the relative size. Using another taxon for comparison would not be very helpful: we could only determine its usefulness by checking whether the scapulocoracoid would fit...--MWAK (talk) 11:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

MWAK: I scaled the scap to its actual length, and it looks like it fit pretty well. Here's the updated version: [49]. The ventral pelvis has been fixed, and the colors actually mean stuff this time. White elements are from the lectotype/paralectotype series, cyan elements are from the multitudinous referred specimens. The femur is a light cyan just to show that although it is known in the holotype, it was based on a better-preserved specimen here. How does this update look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, the pelvis strikes me as being a bit small in relation to the legs, with the distal end of the pubic bone not reaching the level of the proximal femur. I tended to think of Megalosaurus as a rather low-slung form, not the long-legged creature I see here. Also, some of the elements might be traced more precisely. E.g. the subtle curvature of the front edge of the femur could be better expressed, avoiding the impression that it was a straight bone. In the ulna, the olecranon might be made more recognisable. I should immediately add that this is more easier said than done in pixels...--MWAK (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's the newer WIP: [50]. I've tried to elongate the pubis, is this sufficient, MWAK? I can't due much about the ischium or illium lengths. I've redrawn a better defined ulna. As for the femur, I've used BMNH 31806 to draw it, and that femur is a pretty straight bone. Other updates include adding the rest of the figured material (I think), blocking out the locations of the dorsal vertebrae, correcting the known material for the arms and right metatarsus, and relocation of some elements. I plan on restoring most of the unknown parts of fragmentary bones after Torvosaurus later this month. I may look into adding some of the unfigured elements, too. How does this version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I find the first two caudals weird. Is the neural spine height supposed to decrease that much over two verts? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The distal end of the pubic bone now seems to be at the correct level. I take it the ilium and ischium will eventually be made proportional?--MWAK (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized that the hypodigm comes from multiple individuals... well, that explains why the femoral head is bigger than the acetabulum... It seems as though Torvosaurus basically suffers from the same issue, so would Afrovenator be the best model for checking the cross-scaling of the specimens, seeing as it's a big, boxy-headed megalosaurid? The caudals will eventually be spread out more, and the pelvis increased in size. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Here's a version with a larger pelvis, I've also added flesh. The outline may change as I read up on the damage on the unrestored elements and how to "fix" them. How does this version look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh, perhaps it would help if I actually provided a link (>_<) ... [51]. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks a lot better now!--MWAK (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It has been restored and uploaded! How does it look? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Very nice and very useful!--MWAK (talk) 06:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Anchiceratops Size Comparison(s)

I've just overhauled my NMC 8547 size comparison. My Anchiceratops proper size comparison is also in dire need of updating to conform with my current standards. The last time I sent this image through here (almost 3 years ago now!) I was encouraged to use a less atypical chasmosaurine postcranium for it. However, I currently think that NMC 8547 is still the best base. My reasoning is:

NMC 8547 is a chasmosaurine.
It is quite different from other known postcrania of chasmosaurines (Chasmosaurus, Kosmoceratops, Pentaceratops, and Triceratops, among others)
NMC 8547 most likely belongs to either Anchiceratops or Arrhinoceratops
Those two genera are close relatives and reasonably similar, but no definite good postcrania are known from taxa in their region of the tree
No matter which one "gets" the skeleton, it will still probably be the best basis for restoring either one

Additionally, what exactly is a "typical chasmosaurine body"? Chasmosaurus is not an especially close relative of Anchiceratops, which generally winds up between Utahceratops+Pentaceratops and Triceratops none of which have postcrania that can be considered "generic." Anyways, regarding the limbs of this size comparison, are they okay or do they need some more flesh? Is there anything else about it that's problematic? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Scutellosaurus Size Comparison

Here's yet another size comparison, this time depicting the rather important taxon Scutellosaurus. There's not a whole lot to say about it, really, other than that it took a really long time to make with all those tiny osteoderms... Comments? Sorry about the proliferation of sections devoted to single size charts, I may just post any further ones here if I choose to make them. Also, does anyone know of a Wuerhosaurus skeletal diagram? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I recall we have scale charts of Scutello already? How do they compare? I have made a skeletal for Wuerhosaurus but it is cursed due to the recurrent idea in papers that the pelvis of ordosensis as-figured is a straight lateral view, giving it a massive pelvis. I havent taken the time to redo it, but for now all I have to say is it has a really short forelimb and might have had a more elongate neck (if stegosaurs underwent cervicalization instead of just losing dorsals). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't look like we had a Scutellosaurus chart until about 5 hours ago, based on searching Commons. Were you thinking of Scelidosaurus? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ankylosaur time! After eating up 52 minutes of my time a few days ago in a futile exercise, Saichania left me quite disgruntled, after discovering that the specimen in the Carpenter paper was a juvenile and apparently had different proportions than the adult, proportions that I couldn't replicate. However, to my surprise, I discovered that Paul actually does have a Saichania skeletal after looking though his older 2010 field guide. It's not in the 2016 edition, and the only justification provided is "Complete skeleton not yet available for restoration." I struggle to understand this, because by then a more complete skeleton had been described, not to mention that he sunk two other ankylosaurid species into S. chulsanensis, and he clearly was capable of restoring the animal before. Anyways, how does this size comparison look? (Sorry for the rambling above.) The bigger individual is scaled to the skull length, and matches the 5.2m estimate. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Does Paul's 2010 skeletal incorporate data from the sunk species, or is the sinking a 2016 novelty? That would be my only concern. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hmm... he has always lumped Tianzhenosaurus into Saichania. He does have a Saichania skull in the 2016 guide, but while it is similar, it is also noticeably different from the one on the body (i.e. orbit shape, horn shape, dentary slopes more gradually to reach the predentary, premaxilla less recurved). Paul provides an estimate of 5 m in 2016 as opposed to his 5.2 m estimate of 2010, which seems to indicate that the skeletal actually depicts Tianzhenosaurus (which apparently is quite complete) instead. Other than attempt to make a Tianzhenosaurus size comparison, what should I do at this point? Paul gives the lowest estimates, and scaling up the juvenile doesn't provide a long enough length. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

A belated thought... would it help to reference measurements and photographs in Maryanska's description of the holotype? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It worked really well! I'm wondering though: did I make the ankles too straight? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks fine to me but I'll let others weigh in. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, here's one more before the end of the month, and here's as good a spot as anywhere to place it. Comments? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

According to Peng (1992) the femur should be almost twice the length of the skull. Not sure how to reconcile that with Qilong's skeletal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)