Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive May 2019 - August 2019

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review Archives Current Image Review Page Gallery of approved images Requested Image List ? This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy. If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives. Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews). For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page: Criteria sufficient for using an image: See Guidelines for dinosaur restorations for minimum requirements for anatomical accuracy in dinosaur restorations used in articles. If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon. Criteria for removing an image: Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements. Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers. Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing). Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position. Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements. Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers. Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers. The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing. Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion. Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands. Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position. Image differs appreciably from known size estimates. Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus. Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual. Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints. Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all). Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it. Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus. Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range. Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together. Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time. Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models. Approved images: Images that have been approved by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs team can now be found at Category:Approved dinosaur images. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate dinosaur restorations"[7], so they can be easily located for correction. Click here to submit a new image for review

Reviewed images

Juratyrant Size chart and known material

A diagram representing the known material of the holotypic specimen of Juratyrant. Missing elements restored with Stokesosaurus skeleton by Scott Hartman, Skull restored after Sinotyrannus, Proceratosaurus and Guanlong (after Loewen et al 2013, which places the genus under Proceratosauridae). The current diagram on the Wikipedia page doesn't seem to stick close to the material presented in the paper (specifically the hip) and the skull doesn't show many of the features diagnostic to the family. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a good start, although there is some room for improvement. For example, the placement of Juratyrant and Stokesosaurus within Proceratosauridae is not definite, with Brusatte & Carr (2016) being a good example of a study which places them outside of the group. Even if they were proceratosaurids, they may not necessarily have had crests, because Yutyrannus may have been part of the group yet it lacked the large, plate-like Guanlong-style crest. I would recommend removing the crest from your silhouette. In addition, the preserved and missing portions of the illium visible in your skeletal more closely resemble those of the right illium rather than the left illium. Either you could change the shape of the grey areas, or flip the image to transform the left side into a right side. In addition, the skeleton also preserves bones of the left leg, albeit less complete than those of the right. The left leg in your skeletal seems to include the practically complete right leg, with the actual (incomplete) remains of the left leg being completely omitted. I would recommend flipping the image so that the right hip and leg bones are actually placed on the right side. After that you can add in the bones of the left leg in the other leg of the silhouette. You also seem to have omitted a partial anterior dorsal vertebra (OUMNH J.3311-30) from the base of the neck. You did seem to include the other four preserved dorsal vertebrae (OUMNH J.3311-2 through 5), but Benson (2008) doubted that they were continuous, so there were probably at least a few gaps between them. The sacral and tail vertebrae have few issues, although there was a thin partial vertebra (OUMNH J.3311-11) just behind OUMNH J.3311-10 (which you placed directly above the tip of the ischium). You will need to add this vertebra (OUMNH J.3311-11) as well as a couple of chevrons described by Benson (2008). If you didn't know, the right pubis is nearly complete, so you can show more material for that bone. You seemingly only included the incomplete left pubis. The ischium is the opposite case, with the left part of the bone being more complete than the right. If the skeletal is flipped so that we see it from the right (as I recommend), you'd also have to add in an incomplete right ischium overlapping the left bone which you already included.

TL;DR- You put right side bones on the left side, so flip the image so that they are actually on the right side. Put in a few more vertebrae and the nearly complete right pubis. Fill the other leg with bones, since leg bones are known for both legs (although the left leg is less complete). Get rid of the crest since it may not be a Proceratosaurid. If you can access jstor, see Benson (2008) here for pictures and info: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20490999?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I've edited most of your suggestions: I don't agree with not including a crest however. True, Yutyrannus lacked a crest. However, all Proceratosaurids from the Jurassic which have well preserved skulls preserve a crest: Yutyannus is more derived. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 17:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Btw, the note on Yutyrannus was an afterthought to my main point, which is that Juratyrant was not a proceratosaurid according to the study of Brusatte & Carr (2016), which imho takes precedence over Loewen et al (2013). A few more notes: You put the partial vertebra (OUMNH J.3311-11) in front of the more complete one (OUMNH J.3311-10) when in reality OUMNH J.3311-11 was behind it. You also seem to have forgotten the left tibia and perhaps included a bit too much white area on the left femur. You may also want to include a partial right ischium overlaying the left ischium. Other than that it looks great. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You're really close to perfection (I see you already added it to the article), but there are still a few little things to change. I honestly think that the crest should be omitted due to reasons I've outlined previously. The sliver of OUMNH J.3311-11 is from the front part of the vertebra, not the rear part (the little upper triangular extensions are prezygapophyses). You still need to include a few chevrons. Apart from those little fixes it's complete. Thanks for all the patience. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Eotyrannu5 because it would be nice to have this one done and dusted ^-^--TKWTH (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Woops: apologies, been busy with work lately. Will try and finish this one ASAP Eotyrannu5 (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Eotyrannu5 ... --TKWTH (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Image has already been updated accordingly Eotyrannu5 (talk) 11:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Great, I also like how you darkened the shading in the grey areas. I'm still not sure why the crest hasn't been removed, Loewen et al. (2013) seems to be an outlier among tyrannosauroid analyses, so I don't think that Juratyrant was a proceratosaurid. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Eotyrannu5 again because c'mon dude, let's get shot of the crest and we can call it a day. Newest studies place it as a sister taxon to Eotyrannus, more derived than any proceratosaurid, so if any anatomical features in the silhouette need tweaking to reflect that relationship, that'd also be nice if necessary. --TKWTH (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed headcrest in both images. Apologies for the very long wait Eotyrannu5 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks great! Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Nemegtomaia eggs

Nesting Nemegtomaia

Jens Lallensack recently notified me of this dissertation[8], which seems to state the egg arrangement in my Nemegtomaia restoration (shown on page 148) is wrong: "Note that the arrangement of clutch is upsidedown, with the eggs inclined outwards and the pointed end directed upward. This is also the first reconstruction that shows integumentary appendages (filamentous feathers and planar feathers) in the adult .Note that the eggs are pigmented based on the evidence for biliverdin preservationin the Macroolithus yaotunensis eggs (Wiemann et al., 2017)". I followed this figure[9] in the Fanti paper, though, but the arrangement could of course have been disturbed. What do people think, should I change the position of the eggs, or am I reading something wrong? Pinging Ashorocetus, our only egg-expert... FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Well that's kinda cool. It seems that the proper nest orientation is with eggs close to vertical, and leaning slightly inwards, with multiple rings. Not sure what change you'd make to display that but from the text and critiques to other images that seems to be whats correct. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Well my expertise has been challenged since I should have known this beforehand, but yes you did read that correctly and the eggs should be inclined outward. I am sorry I didn't catch this when you were first making the reconstruction. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 17:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I must admit I have a bit of a hard time envisioning this. Perhaps the eggs wouldn't even be visible from this angle? FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll ask the writer of the dissertation about it in an email... FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

This has now been updated. FunkMonk (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Xuanhanosaurus qilixiaensis reconstruction

I'm not sure about integumentary structures on this animal - it's not a coelurosaurid, so the guidelines don't say anything about protofeathers or anything. I took the liberty of adding a few protofeathers to the head, but I'm not sure if they should be included or if more should be present.

Xuanhanosaurus qilixiaensis

Audrey.m.horn (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that this taxon is too incomplete to come to any clear conclusions about its anatomy. It's probably either a piatnitzkysaurid or metriacanthosaurid, in which case I would recommend looking at Paleocolour's Piatnitzkysaurus (since there aren't many good metriacanthosaurid restorations). I'd also recommend altering the forearms, they seem unusually long and the right hand seems to be supinating. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the forearms. In the article it was talking about how it was originally under debate whether the animal walked on all four legs or just the two hind legs, so I tried to compensate for that, but you are right. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The torso (particularly around the shoulder region) seems much too large and robust, I don't think any theropod dinosaur had the front of the torso larger than the pelvis. The arms also don't seem to be articulated correctly to the shoulder girdle. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 21:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: Shortened/edited arm construction, reshaped torso. I'll color it after all the anatomical issues are fixed. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, instead of uploading new files for every revision, you should just update the existing files (look at the bottom of the file page on Commons for thayt). FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: colored and shaded; created a size comparison diagram. I'm going to go ahead and add these to the article if nobody has any more suggestions. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally think that the double-humped back looks a bit odd, as I can't think of any large theropods that have that appearance. For the size comparison, I'd recommend darkening every fourth line (to make each meter more distinct) and move the human and theropod down so that the human's heels and the theropod's middle toe are on a line. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

fixed! Audrey.m.horn (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

New size comparison format looks great, perhaps you could also add it to your Pinacosaurus scale diagram. As for the Xuanhanosaurus, going by Piatnitzkysaurus, the apex of the back should be located a bit further back than it currently is. Other than that, I think that it's ready. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Kaatedocus restoration

I just finished a sketch of Kaatedocus and am about to color it. Is there any change needed? I also notice the size diagram of this dinosaur seem to be in bad shape and needs fixing.

The snout looks off but thats it as far as I can tell. It doesn't looks narrow like Diplodocus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I just changed the snout and add color and spines.

Not all the spines that are known from the Kaatedocus specimen are the tall thin ones that are usually illustrated running down the midline of diplodocids. There are other blunter, shorter 'spines' with rounder bases known, these could be from the sides of the body. See fig 8 and 9 in Czerkaz 1994. [10] Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I see some issues with the, uh, orifices; the eye is perhaps twice too large, the nostril seems too large, an ear opening is missing, and the antorbital fenestra is sunken. Apart from that, why all the white space at the top of the image? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I just fixed the dinosaur based on your suggestions. Are there any other anatomical mistakes?

The ear would probably have been further down, as in this model:[11] Or this drawing:[12] And again, what's all that white space above it for? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed! Can I add it to the article now?

I have no other issues, but I don't know too much about sauropod body structure... FunkMonk (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Some Diplodocids are lacking life restoration, may I draw them too?

Of course, goes for any dinosaurs needing restorations, as long as they are posted here for review. By the way, remember to sign comments with four tildes! FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• For the size comparison, I can create a new one if I can get a link to a reference. I've got to update my older diplodocids sometime soon anyways. Also, Galeamopus seems to also be in need of a size comparison, not to mention Diplodocidae itself! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• I tried to create a background and change the animal's posture a bit [13]. Thoughts? Alamotitan (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks artistically nice, but keep in mind that our main purpose here for restorations is to clearly show the anatomy; the new version is very dark, and it's hard to make out details. FunkMonk (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dinheirosaurus/Supersaurus lourinhanensis

Dinheirosaurus life restoration with the proportion close to Supersaurus. Is there anything wrong with the overall anatomy? Alamotitan (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Not from what I can see, other than if that spot is the ear, it should be above the level of the lower jaw. Also, what's with all the white space on the left? FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

My intention is to add some background with a few other animals from the formation. Alamotitan (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Only the ear seems to be an issue to me then. And before anyone says it shouldn't have cheeks, here's what the author of the recent jaw muscle study, Ali Nabavizadeh, just said on Facebook: "please know that my study still doesn’t say one way or the other about if there was skin on the side. There might have been, and probably was at least some for SOME ornithischian groups. The conversation is MUCH more nuanced than that though, especially given the huge diversity among ornithischians." Should apply to dinosaurs in general, I'd say; cheek skin is a possibility even if there weren't mammal-like cheek muscles. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Just updated the overall posture. Thoughts? Don't mind the head being a little too big, I've fixed it. Alamotitan (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

So I guess I have finished the drawing? Are there any issues I'm not aware of? If not I'll add it to the article right away. Alamotitan (talk) 11:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The huge feature scales on the tail seem to sort of stick out randomly, and this makes it look kind of odd. The perspective on the back hindlimb looks kind of off, but that may just be the other leg blocking the view. Other than those issues, I don't see anything wrong, although it may be worth it to wait for someone better versed in sauropod anatomy than me to comment before adding it. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed the color and the perspective quite a bit. Alamotitan (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Any critiques? Alamotitan (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The left hindlimb is too close to the right, either the pelvis is extremely narrow or the left leg would be behind on the vertebral column. The pelvis should display about the same width as the forelimbs. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

More sauropod size comparisons

I have created this size comparison. If I have time before we archive this section, I will try to add more of them here. I plan to do Lavocatisaurus next. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, one thing I'm noticing on the Larramendi skeletal is that there is something odd going on with the feet, but it kinda looks like you have already corrected for that? It looks like he's restored the metatarsals extra long which if adjusted would make the back legs appear shorter and make the back pitch up more. Also, I haven't got time to do a proper check atm, but it looks like it's close to Somphospondyli? so maybe there is an argument to put a bit of Paluxysaurus in the silhouette, maybe a higher arching nasal bone? Steveoc 86 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to do Lavocatisaurus anymore, scaling went abominably, as the skeletal has no scale bar and the paper has no length estimate. I am working on a Xenoposeidon skeletal right now (doesn't take too long, as it preserves only one bone), which I will use the silhouette of Lavocatisaurus for. I'm using the rebbachisaurid paper as a reference, and I'm reasonably confident in all the parts that were restored, except for the Limaysaurus-type neural spine. I'm wondering what would be a good reference for the spine, perhaps Nopcsaspondylus? I'll take another look at Chubutisaurus. Also, I'm going to take Bajadasaurus out of my dicraeosaurid chart due to a lack of estimates. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Xenoposeidon is an odd one, I have no clue what to restore the vertebra on. But Limaysaurus and Nopcsaspondylus are bad choices because they have a miniscule centrum. Something like Histriasaurus may be better. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Hey, I said I'd be mass-producing these things, right? Well, having failed to live up to that statement, here's a Euhelopus for the sake of adding another one. Anyone else surprised at how small this guy is? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The neck on Euhelopus seems proportionally short; looking at skeletal references the neck seems to be (very approximately) about twice the torso length. In your diagram, it seems closer to ~1.5 or so. I suspect the shoulder placement in the Ebbestad image has given this impression. Speaking of shoulder blades, others attempts at cross scaling seems to give a very large shoulder blade for Euhelopus (see Paul's and these by Armstrong's here [14]) Articulating the shoulder in a more vertical posture creates this: [15] I suspect the shoulder and humerus belong to another individual/taxon buuut... Does anyone have any thoughts on this and how we should illustrate it? Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thescelosaurus and Moros

A Thescelosaurus shortly after the K-Pg extinction.

A reconstruction of Moros intrepidus in a floodplain

Hello. I know there’s already a Moros drawing here, but I’m case you need any more, I made one already.

The Thescelosaurus survived by burrowing, but would die soon after. It could be used on an article about the extinction itself. PaleoEquii (talk) 06:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The Thescelosaurus seems to have an extremely short neck (doesn't look like even bending could make it look like that), and the Moros looks very bulky compared to what is implied by the "official" digram and restoration. Not sure if those conspicuously forward facing Gorgosaurus/Daspletosaurus-like horns are appropriate either (all this makes it look like a derived, large tyrannosaur, which it was not). FunkMonk (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The dentition looks rather unusual on Moros, the teeth aren't that shape or in that pattern in Dryptosaurus or other basal eutyrannosaurs. Also, the toes are extremely short. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs)

The neck seems to me to only appear shorter due to the fluffy integument, like modern birds. I see no issue with this. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

The neck seems too short to me as well, given the relative positions of the arms and head and the head size. It would need to be very tightly folded to fit, to a degree that I'm not convinced is possible. Additionally, the hands appear much too theropod-like to me. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The Great Skeletal Roundup

As you may have predicted by the title, I have a lot of stuff to say:

• First off, in case anyone else hasn't yet noticed, Scott Hartman's skeletal diagram of Sue was published in an PeerJ article where he was a coauthor, thereby making it CC-BY! FunkMonk has already uploaded it and added it to the Tyrannosaurus article: File:Tyrannosaurus Sue skeletal reconstruction.png!
• Second, you may have noticed that Greg Paul's work is hard to find online. However, I have found several of his skeletals here: [16]. Since they're is PLoS ONE, and they were used with his permission, does that make them CC-BY?
• Third, Bricksmashtv has uploaded some more of his skeletals to his DA page since last time we discussed them. These include Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis, Diplodocus carnegii, and D. hallorum. Those three look like entirely original works, so I think that we could upload them.
• Fourth, since no more comments have been added to my three skeletals above, I'm assuming that they can be added to their respective articles unless anyone objects.
• Fifth, my work on Limaysaurus continues! So far, I've used the humerus of L. sp. as a reference to make the humerus better, and used the Armstrong and Paul skeletals to get a rough idea of what the other underillustrated elements look like, and re-scaled them. I also noticed that a bunch of totally unfigured stuff exists, but I've opted to omit this material as the paper's skeletal is not all that good. Also, the head seems twice as large as in Armstrong and Paul's reconstructions, and the caudals half as large. What should I do about these Here's the current WIP: [17]
• Sixth, it looks like the labels in Fig. 4 of this paper are reversed. Comments on that? I'll need to know for my Rayososaurus skeletal.
• Finally, I'm wondering about "recycling" old skeletals by placing the known material onto a more modern silhouette. Comments on that?

I hope that this isn't too overwhelming... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't say much here other than I had to reconstruct some parts in the Sue skeletal that were covered in yellow lines (took quite some time), and as for recycling old skeletals, that should be fine, as all Commons files are free to "remix". As for the GSP skeletals, yeah, should be ok to use, I think they haven't been uploaded yet because they were so low res... FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's a Polacanthus (silhouette modified from my Gastonia): [18]. I'm thinking that Brontosaurus excelsus may also be a worthy target. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Point 1) No harm no foul we have used multiple Hartman skeletals (Torvo for example). 2) Paul is another issue he would be far less forgiving if his "used with permission" isn't supposed to apply to the license. 3) Those sauropod skeletals seem to be fine. 4) Yes. 5) I wonder if the scale bars (I assume you used those) are wrong. The tail should have more vertebrae between bones, easily double the current size. The dorsal vertebra known is from a different individual than the holotype, so the Armstrong interpretation is inaccurate. The posterior cervical and anterior dorsal? are backwards. Otherwise looks okay for now. 6) The figures appear to be correct, I'm not sure what your question is about though. 7) As long as the new skeletals are accurate in their proportions, material known, and bone articulations, it should be okay, but that may take a lot more work than you expect. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Aha! That's it! (Referring to point 5) I totally failed to realize that the Cd1-5 come from a different specimen. Since that specimen preserves an ischium, I'll use that to cross scale them (although the two specimens have really different-looking ischia...) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As for Fig. 4 on the Rayososaurus paper, shouldn't the 4th trochanter form a bulge on the femur's silhouette in medial view? Here's a link to the Limaysaurus paper, by the way: [19] --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmm... Limaysaurus actually seems to have quite a big head: File:Limaysaurus skeleton.jpg. I wonder if the scale bar might actually be correct here... should I go the bar path or the Paul/Armstrong path? And what should I do with the referred dorsal? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Here's the updated version: [20] Sorry that it looks pretty ugly right now. Anyways, element position and axial outline is roughly based on Armstrong's skeletal. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

One thing thats possible would to be scale the pink dorsal so the entrum height is the same as the first caudal figured. Centra are generally the same height for most of the vertebral column, but in cervicals there are significant differences between anterior and posterior heights. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, funnily enough, doing that gives me almost exactly the same back height that I expected! Here's the 4th WIP: [21]. I think that the rest of the head'll be based on Demandasaurus, since Khebbashia generally seems to be found. Limbs silhouettes are, once again, stolen from my Nigersaurus and altered to fit Limaysaurus limbs. Also, has it ever been suggested that the two most complete specimens aren't cospecific (looking at their radically different ischia...) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Certainly looks better now. I think using Demandasaurus for the head would be fine, although it doesn't preserve a lot. Lavocatisaurus can also be used as a non-nigersaurus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

[22] It looks like some referred material for Limaysaurus sp. also exists. I'll see if I can cram that in sometime soon. Skeletals for the three specimens will be uploaded in a short time. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

YES!!!

Another one

• Limaysaurus tessonei completed! The skull looks kind of weird, any comments on that (or anything else)? Rayososaurus and Cathartesaura will come next, and I just drew everything except the chevron of Limaysaurus sp., so I'm tired. For the fibula of Rayososaurus, I assume that it would be acceptable to "steal" it from Limaysaurus (with some modifications). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Rayososaurus decided to join in as well. Any comments on either of these? I'll try to work on Cathartesaura over the week. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

• I have uploaded the Mamenchisaurus: File:Mamenchisaurus hochuanensis Skeletal.png. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
• Just very quick: I would make the large Limaysaurus in the background much lighter; currently one can barely see the silhouette of the smaller ones in front of it, especially in thumb view. For your pair pic below, "sp." should not be in italics. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Done! Bricksmashtv recently created what looks like a fully original Convolosaurus, so I'll try to upload that here sometime, too. Also, does anyone have a paper that gives vertebral measurements for Cathartesaura (I'll post a WIP as soon as I can)? Once again, I'm going to have to go the Limaysaurus route and leave out a lot of poorly known, unfigured, and undescribed material. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• 
  Bagualosaurus
• 
  Pampadromaeus
• 
  Guaibasaurus
• 
  Staurikosaurus
• 
  Buriolestes

• Remember Maurissauro's sauropodomorph skeletals from October 2018? Many of them have been updated. Any comments on them? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think all the new skeletals are good proportionally and show the right material. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Cathartesaura development has begone: [23] the dark gray material belongs to Limaysaurus. Silhouette was scaled to match scapular size. Any comments on the caudals? (I'm pretty sure the scale bears on them were wrong if they're bigger than the cervical...) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Scale bars, not scale bears... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Juvenile Tyrannosaurus and Patagotitan pair

Hello. Although I doubt it’ll be used, I did make this restoration of a Juvenile Tyrannnosaurus (based on the Jane specimen) walking through a muddy lake. It’s split from a full image, in which a continent-hopping Hatzegopteryx is seen stalking it from a rock in the lake (let me know if that would be useful for an article).

Also, a reconstruction of two Patagotitan (male and female) at dawn, with a small generic theropod watching them wander in the distance.PaleoEquii (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, for Jane, I would expect a longer, lower skull and longer arms (Here's Hartman's reconstruction: [24]). As for the Patagotitan, the current limb musculature seems a little random and doesn't seem to match the sauropod's shape. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The lighting in this image is spectacular; very naturalistic! It's a lovely scene! I do however agree with Slate Weasel that the anatomy is a little vague. If you could improve the anatomy without ruining the style, that would be ideal. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Paralititan Scale Diagram

As requested here is a Paralititan scale diagram using the same silhouette as Argyrosaurus, showing the elements illustrated in Smith et. al. 2001. Seen here: [25]

Isn't more material known of this species [26], or was it just omitted due to the lack of images of the material? The silhouette looks nice. We also now have skeletals for nearly every sauropod in the Carpenter diagram! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

In the refs and notes section, it mentions two fused sacral verts, dorsal and sacral ribs, 'distal metracarpal', and 'several additional elements')Looking at the quarry map (maybe a chevron?) I'll have a look to see if the scapular and verts have been illustrated somewhere. I'm slightly reluctant to show bones that I don't have a photo or illustration to go off. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a version showing elements mentioned but not illustrated [27]. I'd rather not show them because they're completely made up; for example, the paper doesn't say which metacarpal it's likely to be. There are some images on the commons of Paralititan material, but I found none of them particularly useful. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting a 403 error (no login), but I think that it may be best to just disregard my first comment. Limaysaurus and Cathartesaura have taught me not to go drawing what has never been properly described... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I copied the wrong link in. Try now? Also, I've uploaded a version without unillustrated bones to the commons. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Looks good, but stromeri shouldn't be capitalized. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Demandasaurus

The demanded skeletal

Rebbachisaurids again. This time I've returned with the rather complete Demandasaurus darwini. I don't think that I'll manage to do Zapalasaurus, but I hope to get Amazonsaurus done. Any comments on this guy? Most of the material isn't properly figured, and two caudal verts have mysteriously vanished from view in the literature, like some other rebbachisaurid material (looking at you, Limaysaurus). I tried to reverse as little of the well-figured material as possible. Any feedback? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is some material white and others grey? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

White = Known, Light gray = Known but inadequately figured. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not super confident about this and it's somewhat minor as it's incomplete; have you left enough room for the dorsal vertebra spinous process in the silhouete? The first caudal has quite a tall spine on it and other Rebbachisaurids arn't shy in the spinous process area. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I have updated the silhouette. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Just a couple things; The skull in the silhouette looks quite large compared to the lower jaw. Also, have you blocked out the missing vertebra, mainly in the neck? The middle cervical looks quite large which might imply a slightly longer neck? Extrapolating from that it doen't look to me like the rest of the cervical vertebrae could fit in the spaces. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Shrunk the skull a bit. You are right, roughly placing 13 cervicals in results in a slightly longer neck. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Daspletosaurus horneri

Hey! Do you think this D. horneri is okay? I'm sorry it's already inked, I didn't think to get feedback until after that stage was done! I'm dumb, I'm sorry xD I'm thinking of perhaps replacing Dmitry Bogdanov's D. torosus with mine if everything's good with it, given some anatomical gaffes (the strange arm positions, scapular shrinkwrapping, overly skinny legs, strange pterygoideus shape and general over-bulking etc.) :) Plus, there's more than enough images regarding D. torosus in comparison to the complete lack of D. horneri life restorations! --TKWTH (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

WIP life reconstruction of D. horneri

The snout seems to be too square and tall. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That's probably because of the lips xD The mouth isn't closed entirely, skeletally speaking (think of how you don't necessarily lock your teeth together when your mouth is closed), and the lips do somewhat conceal the inwards curve of the premaxilla! Not to mention, I was a bit liberal with the nasal keratin, so that probably makes the head look a little blockier than more conservative reconstructions ^-^ --TKWTH (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Hartman just released a skeletal for it, so it should be cross-checked accordingly. [28]. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

lmao that's the main reference I used! ^-^--TKWTH (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Compared side-by-side with the skeletal, it looks like everything is fine anatomically, except for the snout, which I think has too much keratin extension, making it less sloping then in the skeletal. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Hartman deliberately leans conservatively with regards to his soft-tissue silhouettes :) Mark Witton has previously stated that keratinous extensions of bony crests and other such structures have the potential to be far more... well, extensive than often depicted, citing Darwinopterus robustodens and also making reference to animals such as Bighorn Sheep in similar contexts ^-^ While I don't necessarily think that every keratin display structure of these natures should be as extensive as Darwinopterus' crest, of course, I maintain that, by Witton's metric, the nasal keratin extension on my D. horneri is perfectly within the realms of plausibility, if a bit more extensive than conventional depictions (and perhaps, by Witton's proposed metric, considerably understated!) --TKWTH (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The premaxillae of D. torosus (unknown in D. horneri) are not rugose in texture, and its the nasal process of the premaxilla that I think are restores too tall in your drawing. Because of the lack of rugosity, we shouldn't expect there to be a substantial keratin extension, and the front of your snout is too tall and boxy. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Siats

Hi! Me again xD Thought I'd throw this WIP (and thankfully un-inked xD) Siats into the ring, see what y'all think so far ^-^ Figured it'd be nice to replace the old one with something a little less shrink-wrapped, a little more colourful and a decent bit more Neovenator-ish, given Siats' affiliation! (No disrespect to FunkMonk, though, of course!!) --TKWTH (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Siats, with a speculative gular pouch! Feathers may or may not be added, but I'll leave that up to you guys :)

What is particularly shrink wrapped about the old one? Possibly the nasal ridges make the sides of the head look sunken. But really, "shrink wrapping" has become a catch all buzzword, people forget to also look at living reptiles (not just mammals) and how skull hugging their heads often are. As for this image, Siats is known from so little that I intentionally posed it in a way that wouldn't misleadingly show off unknown features. But that's of course not something you have to do. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say either the fenestrae are overly sunken, or the rod of bone between the orbit and the antorbital fenestrae (does that have a name?) is overly prominent. Also, I know, I used the skeletal in the article as well as User:Eotyrannu5's Neovenator skeletal and various carcharodontosaur skeletals to get the best idea I could :) (tagging Eo because he worked super hard on the Neovenator skeletal so I figure he might have some good input on Siats here) I ended up going for something like a more robust Neovenator, to account for the vastly increased size whilst not deviating too far from what we know. The gular pouch was just for fun, honestly xD they seem to be all the rage for theropods at the moment, and in terms of personal artistic growth, I do need to experiment more with speculative soft tissue. Most of my palaeoart is kinda bland in that area lmao --TKWTH (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

You mean the lacrimal bone? We do know many theropods had rugosities on the nasal and lacrimal bones. As a consequence, these areas would have protruded more than the adjacent parts. As for gular pouches, impressions of such is apparently known in a Tarbosaurus, so it isn't speculative as such (but as in modern animals, it would hardly be distended constantly). FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fair :) but the protrusion still looks like a little much. All that aside, the original image is a little less Neovenatorid-ish and a bit more 'main-line' carcharodontosaur-ish than it probably should be, particularly in skull morphology. As well, the lacrimal/facial crests look a little too knobbly, as if they were larger scales rather than keratinous growths, though I may be wrong there (And I will admit, I have experimented with scaly crests rather than keratinous ones, mainly, funnily enough, on Neovenator!) I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to disparage your work, by the way!! xD

Also yeah, the gular pouch ended up actually less distended than I'd hoped! Perhaps that was for the best xD --TKWTH (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend that siat's phylogenetic position be left undiscussed as a reason for accuracy/inaccuracy, it's either a neovenatorid or a megaraptorid and the two groups have very different proportions. I think the current work is fine, I see no real issue with having a second restoration if the article gets big enough, but I think efforts of creating restorations could be better used for other taxa. Regarding anatomy, I think it's fine, and since its restored as a neovenatorid here I would say feathers are unlikely really everywhere but the arm (Concavenator) and upper torso. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fair, however FunkMonk's restoration looks neither sufficiently neovenatorid nor sufficiently megaraptoran IMHO, the latter case especially. Plus, and, I must stress, with all due respect to FunkMonk, their restoration is, uh... Kind of on the messy side? It looks rather sketchy and 'unclean', which, at the risk of sounding unintentionally arrogant, I intend to rectify with my reconstruction as best I can. Speaking of which, I concede that yes, my efforts likely would be better used on other taxa for the purpose of Wikipedia illustrations xD All I can really respond to that with is, well, I've been meaning to reconstruct Siats for over a year now, so I decided to use Wikipedia as a sort of 'motivator' for that, I suppose lmao and, in fairness, I've started it and submitted it for review now, sooo xD --TKWTH (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Heh, if you think the current version is too carcharodontosaur-like, you should see the original[29] Anyhow, I made it megaraptorid-like by making the snout pointier and removing the lacrimal horns. But we should keep such restorations more or less generic, considering that it is almost guaranteed it will keep jumping around phylogenetically due to the scant material. As for facial integument, we know basically nothing about its life appearance in theropods, so it is kind of pointless to cling to one interpretation or the other, until some mummified head is found. Even the literature spans widely on the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense, though I am pretty sure the consensus at the moment is very much in the "head crests were keratinous, not scaly" camp, with what looks to be few arguments to the contrary. Also, small nitpick I forgot to mention! The nostrils on the current image are far too low down, though I admit that's not really an error that warrants a complete replacement xD I dunno, the skeletal in the article seems pretty clearly settled on a neovenatorid Siats, as does the size comparison, the info-box (or whatever it's called) at the top-right and the allosauroid links-box (or whatever it's called xD) at the bottom, as well as the recent studies mentioned in the Description section. Seems like a pretty solid consensus to me, even within the confines of this specific article (as solid as these things can be, at least xD)! Plus, the notion of megaraptorans being closely related to Neovenator and its kind seems less and less likely by the day lmao, so the two speculations of what Siats can be are very, and increasingly, hard to reconcile. For consistency's sake as well as consensus', I think a more Neovenator-influenced reconstruction would be best. With all due respect, having all these neovenatorid-leaning diagrams among one generic-theropod-style life reconstruction (which, to many, would likely be considered the centrepiece of the article in terms of what grabs the attention), creates a tone of inconsistency for the article, I daresay bordering on sloppy (again, to be brutally honest, the sketchy, rough art style, especially when contrasted with the more clean-cut diagrams elsewhere, doesn't help). Forgive me if this at all sounds rude or insulting, I worry I may come off that way and I promise you that's not my intention!! ^-^ --TKWTH (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, style is less important than accuracy in any case, and yeah, it was intentionally drawn roughly, partially to not give a false sense of accuracy/completeness. No point in making a fully rendered, detailed drawing of an animal which will be very hard to fix once it gets reclassified. And I certainly wouldn't conclude anything just because a Wikipedia article has a particular navbox at the bottom... That will change as soon as a new paper pops up that puts the animal in a different position. And with that scrappy material, you can bet it's going to happen. As for the nostirls being too low, not if we follow Witmer's suggestion (which has never been contested) that the fleshy nostrils would not necessarily be within the bony nares (see the Tyrannosaurus image that was featured in the study[30]) but at the front of the nasal fossa. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Amazonsaurus Skeletal

Free shipping?

I have finished Amazonsaurus, the last one in my sudden rebbachisaurid skeletal boom (for now, anyways... ). Body is restored after Lavocatisaurus. I have not add the gray regions to the dorsals because 1-I'm not sure what to base them on 2-I don't know the exact locations of the neural spines 3-They are very incomplete and 4-The neural arch is really badly crushed. Otherwise, I have added all of the material and unknown parts of those bones, except for two ribs and a caudal neural spine which haven't been figured yet. Any comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. I have no real comments besides uncrushing the one arch may be useful, but even I am not really sure how to go about that and I've spent some time thinking about it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I already did uncrush it rather roughly to the point where the narrower region actually looked vaguely like the neural spine fragment, but if anyone has a better method, I'm open to trying it (things are tough to decrush in SVG, I probably should try it in XCF). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of Amazonsaurus, I realized that this image has some inaccuracies, and it seems like it was traced directly over the paper's skeletal, making it copyvio. I'm going to replace it with my skeletal diagram in the article for now. Any comments as to what to do with the life restoration (is it worth trying to alter or not)? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Simply being traced from a skeletal doesn't make it a copyvio, it is too dissimilar from the original. As well, there isn't really anything glaringly wrong with it, the proportions are overall unknown but seem reasonable, the manus has one claw, and there is about the right musculature. The only things I see are the sigmoid shape of the forelimb soft tissue, and the sigmoid underbelly, but neither is explicitly wrong. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It is a flipped, copyrighted image, see:[31] Should be deleted, and I have seen it on Commons a bunch of times now... FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Confuciusornis Size Comparison

Finally!

After... er... (consults Confuciusornis talk page) around 4.5 months, I've finally made this (sorry for the huge delay). Having never done a bird before, I'm not too confident about some proportions, feather positions, and neck flexibility, so I expect that this'll take quite awhile to get to a satisfactory condition. Pinging Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk, MWAK, & Lusotitan (sorry if I forgot anyone) for input. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. Just two quick comments for now. Pinging @Dinoguy2:, who probably can spot more.

• Hallux seems way too tiny. Should be half as long as digit II, with a larger claw. Also, the hallux seems to be too elevated.
• Scale bar is much too small. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Is the hallux length better now? How big should the bird be? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The main issue I can see is that it is way too big. As far as I'm aware, the largest Confusciusornis known is 50cm in length, including the tail feathers. You seem to have made the skeletal length 50cm instead. The skeletal length should be about half of the total, so 25cm. Also, it seems a little skinny. Comparing this to Scott Hartman's skeletal, your outline seems to more or less conform to the outline of the skin, when the feathers would add a lot of bulk to this. I'd suggest making the body a bird "rounder". Take a look at this reconstrction to see the basic idea of what I mean: [32] Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I shrank the Confuciusornis. I also added some more feathers to obscure the outline. Is this good enough or is more integument needed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Looks good! Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'll add it to the article, but that gap between the middle fingers looks very unnatural, inf act the gap would be smallest there, and u-shaped. It looks like the gap between the pinky and the ring finger has been swapped for it. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Er, what does this mean exactly? Only manual digit I is visible in the image, so I'm not sure how to fix the gap. Also, Confucuisornis only has three fingers. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Haha, sorry, I mean the human hand. FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Eolambia restoration

I started a restoration of Eolambia. It's my first hadrosaur, so I don't know how accurate it is... I referenced the skeletal diagram on the Eolambia page. I'm kind of confused about the thumb claws because in the skeletal diagram they point forwards but the way I drew them looks kind of funny. Also should it have some sort of plates or lobes along the spine? It didn't say anything about that in the article but most closely related species are drawn with them. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The thumb claws point inwards and forwards, roughly 40º from perpendicular to the long axis of the body. The integument is really anything goes, since hadrosaurids have all sorts of variations and we don't know which are more basal to the group. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

There is some wonkiness with the leg musculature and feet. Again, the calf seems to be in different places on each leg, and the feet seem like they need toe-pads. This image might give an idea:[33] Also, the fingers of hadrosaurs weren't separate, but encased in flesh. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This image also gives a good idea of how much the toe pads (and beak) would extend compared to the bones:[34] FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The head has a bit of a vague, lumpy shape to it. Maybe give it another pass? This reminds, I was meaning to pick up the torch and nominate this for FA at some point... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 17:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and a pretty big deal I missed, the neck vertebrae would connect at the back of the head, now it looks like it is connected below, like a human... And FAC could be good. The article just seems a bit heavy on images, with a lot of text sandwiching. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, fixed all of those things: head and neck, fingers/toes, legs, and adjusted the body and tail a little bit. The diagrams of known material on the article page show Eolambia with individual fingers on the front feet, should that be fixed? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems the safest bet, will ping IJReid about it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Update has been done IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

The brow-ridge is too emphasized, could be toned down and smoothed out a bit? It also kind of seems like the skull is a tad too long in the back, but it's hard to say exactly. Also, what's with that extra curved line behind the elbow of the near forelimb?Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

The thumbs still seem to be coming out way above the wrists, and the calf of the foremost hindleg seems to have disappeared into the thigh. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Fixed thumbs and calf, elbow, and brow ridge. I fit the skull directly over the skeletal diagram and it is pretty exact with the length... so I left that as is. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

colored and shaded everything. is it good before I add it to the article? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Those thumb-spikes seem really strongly curved, iguanodontian thumb-spikes were generally fairly straight. Something about that back leg still seems very off, either in the proportions or the musculature, but I'm not familiar enough with anatomy to pinpoint what exactly. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

fixed the thumb spikes. i'm not totally sure how to fix the back leg; it looks very similar to the reconstruction of Jeyawati (on the Eolambia page) which is very closely related. Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I asked some friends for further feedback since I feel unqualified to give a proper assessment on it; various things were noted. They noticed the presence of what appear to be "hooves" on the arms; I assume this is just a coloration choice but it's misleading either way, there should merely be a fleshy pad so I'd color it the same everything else. The articulation of the arms to the body was questioned (specifically them ending too high on the torso). The thickness of the tail seems to increase in the middle, which shouldn't be the case in an ornithopod and definitely isn't present in the diagram from the article. A few things with the feet were pointed out too; the forefoot heel seems lacking in padding, the footclaws are to small, and the ankle is a bit funky. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

fixed the "hooves," shoulders, tail/back, added padding and lengthened claws. i'm still not totally sure how to fix the ankle i am so sorry! did they give any specific feedback about that? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Might just be me, should be fine as is. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Stolen? images recently added by Bry Hartley

These images were recently added to their respective articles without review. Some are obviously inaccurate, with sunken fenestra, though I admit the Sauroniops does look quite nice. Considering how each image has a different art style, I was suspicious about whether these images were truly made by the user posting them. A quick reverse image search seems to support my suspicions, since the Genyodectes and Sauroniops are lifted straight from dinopedia and the Tyrannotitan is apparently from a deviantart user named unlobogris. So I'm pretty sure these images should just be taken down anyways. I'm just not well-versed in the reporting process. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Also seems one has a signature which is dissimilar to the uploader's name. If the images can be found elsewhere, it is pretty easy to report them on Commons, just click "report copyright violation" at the left toolbox and paste the original links. FunkMonk (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Saurophaganax

I believe this image hasn't been reviewed yet. The legs seem strange.Kiwi Rex (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The left hand also seems to be supinated, and maybe the head is too small (could be due to the angle)? FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The head's definitely weird, and far more similar to the classic Deltadromeus look than to any allosaur. Also the neck seems to take a little too long behind the head before it starts curving, if that makes any sense? And the leg muscles definitely need more mass and probably more definition as well. Even taking perspective into account, this image is still really kinda janky. --TKWTH (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)