![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
It's time for some new rebbachisaurid skeletals this time around! Rebbachisaurus is pretty fragmentary, but it is quite obviously exceedingly weird: [1]. I've filled in the unknown regions with Demandasaurus and Nigersaurus, but the former has made the tail extremely long. Any thoughts on this? I've excluded one of the caudals, as it was not figured (I could try to add it in if desired), and I've neglected to reconstruct the unknown parts of the neural spine-only dorsals, the humerus, and the sacrum (I'll probably restore the first two elements, but the sacrum feels too poorly known to do this for). Any comments on this project? I've also been working on Comahuesaurus: [2] The femur is just a placeholder stolen from my Demandasaurus (again), and a chevron is currently missing (I think I'll have to take that from Demandasaurus too to get a lateral view). The apendicular elements all look like they could belong to a single individual (Comahuesaurus is known from a bonebed), but some of the caudal vertebrae look suspiciously huge (and maybe the posterior dorsal material as well). Any recommendations for how to compensate for this? Any other comments on these projects? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This is just labeled Yangchuanosaurus with no species identification. What is this? And is it accurate? I'm asking because the two Y. shangyouensis skeleton mount images on page Yangchuanosaurus are definitely incorrect as they deviate radically from the actual fossil. I guessed other Yangchuanosaurus mounts were probably inaccurate too. Kiwi Rex ( talk) 04:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
So the user Mariolanzas is "back", so to speak, and he made this new restoration of Diamantinasaurus and added it to the article directly [4]. As we all know, he doesn't submit his artwork to be reviewed, so I'm putting it here now. I don't really know much about Diamantinasaurus, so it's up to you guys to correct something if necessary. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 20:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This image comes from Padian and Chiappe (1998), which actually says the left clavicles are those of Segisaurus, not Coelophysis (because "No Coelophysis clavicles are well preserved" (10.1038/scientificamerican0298-38). More recently, a Coelophysis bauri furcula was described (10.1007/BF02988391) Kiwi Rex ( talk) 00:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page for Hollanda luceria is a reconstruction of the animal as a member of Ornithurae, which is now considered to be incorrect based on the current placement of the animal in Enantiornithes. I reconstructed H. luceria as an Enantiornithine to update the page. Let me know if anything needs changing. Luxquine ( talk) 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
While I have not finished Katepensaurus, I have nevertheless completed another rebbachisaurid skeletal. While all of the holotypic material is figured in lateral view in the description paper, none of the paratype material is shown or even really described at all, so I have omitted it. Any comments on the skeletal? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 15:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
No comments on the skeletal itself, but I would include a unit for the scale bar on the image in case the viewer doesn’t care to look at the caption. Luxquine ( talk) 22:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I’ve created a page for the genus Parvavis, as we didn’t seem to have anything about them on Wikipedia aside from a brief mention in the Enantiornithes page. I have also created this image to supplement the article. While I don’t think I’ve forgotten anything, let me know if something needs changing. Luxquine ( talk) 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
As Conty~enwiki pointed out on my talk page, the juvenile Saichania specimen has actually been reassigned to Pinacosaurus indet., meaning that it will have to be removed from this size chart. I've been trying to figure out what to base the adult Saichania' postcranium on instead. I'm thinking that Pinacosaurus might be the go-to taxon for this, but I'm still indecisive, so I thought that I'd post this here. Any recommendations? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
New model of the basal neotheropod Notatesseraeraptor frickensis! HFoxii ( talk) 07:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Part of my work on the Comahuesaurus skeletal involved me making a new Lavocatisaurus silhouette. Two years ago, I used an older version of this silhouette that I no longer consider accurate for many of my rebbachisaurid skeletals. Amazonsaurus was one of these, and I've recently overhauled its skeletal diagram to incorporate these new predicted proportions. Any comments? If this update is seen as an improvement, I'll also apply it to my Xenoposeidon skeletal. I also plan on updating my Limaysaurus skeletal and cross-checking the reconstructed regions against those of other rebbachisaurids. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps someone will be interested in making a diagram displaying well-known material of the skin of the hadrosaurids based on this [8] ( [9]). I think it would be really useful for articles about the illustrated taxa. HFoxii ( talk) 03:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenneth Carpenter recently uploaded an image of the known material of Cedarosaurus laid out, which inspired me to revisit this old diagram and renovate it a bit. I've uploaded an updated version of this chart based on the aforementioned photograph, using Hartman's (honestly rather odd) Cedarosaurus skeletal to fill in the missing parts (I also somehow broke the information template - does anyone know what went wrong?). I scaled the animal to the length of the femur, and the overall size matches Paul's 15m estimate pretty well. Any comments? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This (p. 289) is the only published reconstruction of Lurdusaurus I'm aware of. The one we have right now seems too limber and it's stomach is too high off the ground. User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 21:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Mario has recently uploaded a new reconstruction of Concavenator. Any thoughts? A marked improvement in some aspects, but the more astute out there can probably spot some anatomical issues that I don't know about. Though I question the visible fenestrae. Monsieur X ( talk) 08:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey how's it going fellas. So, I'm currently working on a very large and quite difficult expansion for Protoceratops and noticed the aggresive lack of up-to-date restorations for this arguably well-known dinosaur. Not long ago I submitted a restoration of P. andrewsi from DeviantArt so..... There are many papers to cover (expansion about 50% done) regarding its paleobiology and it would be nice to have restorations depicting things like its reproductive life, intraspecific varitions, etc. Restoration requests:
Some of the best references online for the overall anatomy of Protoceratops may be Scott Hartman's skeletal [14] and Matt Dempsey's muscle studies [15]. I would like to do these but I'm terrible at ornithiscians and perspective. I hope it's not too much trouble! PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 16:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally i think this looks better than the current art but i will leave it up to you guys Jakegaming7788 ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Added by Ifory without review. This has replaced Headden's 2011 skeletal. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, no one have made a restoration of Gargoyleosaurus to Wikipedia. I have worked carefully to get the body shape and angles correct. I also wanted to give it some enviorement to be in. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 20:04, 20 March 2021
Amen to that, problem fixed (oh-oh, I saw that user Jonagold2000 made a nice restoration of this one last year...) Conty~enwiki 06:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I can understand that, but you can take a look at the skull in the original paper if you want to. 13:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Just want you to know, Dr. Carpenter have looked at my restoration: he argue that Gargoyleosaurus had a beak. Conty~enwiki 06:16, 1 April 2021
The Deltadromeus skeletal in the big Kem Kem paper reconstructed it as an elaphrosaurine noasaurid, so I decided that it was time to update my size chart for it. I primarily used Gualicho to fill in the gaps (mainly the hands and feet), whereas I used a combination of Masiakasaurus and Limusaurus (which were actually more similar than I thought) for the head and neck. I considered re-adding the huge destroyed femur, but I ultimately decided against it as it is destroyed, not too similar to that of the holotype's, and here results in an animal a little over 15m long! I'll also update my silhouette, which, I hate to admit, is pretty much just a streched-out skinny Allosaurus with its lacrimal horns removed. Any thoughts on this new silhouette? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 18:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, it's been a long time since I've been here but I'd love to try and get back into donating illustrations for Wikipedia. I'm looking to work on a new piece for Suchomimus. I feel like it needs a polished, updated bit of art to the page. What I have here is a rough sketch. Any and all criticisms are encouraged. Forgive me if I've typed things out incorrectly here on the forum, I'm still rusty when it comes to typing things here. -- Fred Wierum
Hello again, it's been a while...again. Ive finally managed to work on fully illustrating this piece for the page. Let me know if there's anything that needs correcting. -- Fred Wierum 03:31, 22 March 2022
I'm making this case after this representation of Tlatolophus galorum:
.
This is a case of plagiarism and inaccurate anatomical representation of the species. The wikimedia illustration depicted is a direct copy trace from the original paper: Ramírez-Velasco, Á. A., Aguilar, F. J., Hernández-Rivera, R., Maussán, J. L. G., Rodríguez, M. L., & Alvarado-Ortega, J. (2021). Tlatolophus galorum, gen. et sp. nov., a parasaurolophini dinosaur from the upper Campanian of the Cerro del Pueblo Formation, Coahuila, northern Mexico. Cretaceous Research, 104884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2021.104884
This is the Figure 1. Of the paper. And as we can see, the picture is a direct trace from the skeletal silhouette.
Besides the obvious plagiarism case. The adressed reconstruction does not present any anatomical highlights. Listed as follows:
The skin does not show the scaly integument known in this group of dinosaurs. The tail margin has the same problems the silhouette of Ramírez-Velasco et al. (2021) has, namely, a lower margin with a weird ondulation. The feet does not display any distinguishable toes or ungueals. The manus is a blunt tube with no distinguishable features, such as fingers or claws/ungueals. The eyeball is placed on the jugal bone, and not in the orbit. And finally, the bony crest does not follow the correct shape of the skull.
Therefore. And after the evidence listed here. I suggest that the picture should be adressed by the community to determine its value, and possibly adding a warning of missrepresentation or if necessary, removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Díaz Sibaja ( talk • contribs)
Our current Plateosaurus size comparison does not include P. gracilis, so I've created a size comparison for this species ( [22]), based primarily on Yates (2003), with Mallison (2010) being used to fill in some missing information for the fingers. I'm not entirely sure what to do in this instance, should I upload a separate size comparison for P. gracilis to complement our current one or should I try to add P. trossingensis to this chart instead? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
After discovering that some adult Plateosaurus trossingensis were more than twice as long as other adult Plateosaurus trossingensis, I decided to add P. trossingensis to my chart. Mallison (2010) was very helpful for figuring out how to realistically pose the animal. I've uploaded the chart with the added species, any comments? Creating the head for P. trossingensis was a bit tricky, as pretty much all skulls of this species seem to be more or less crushed somehow. Pinging Jens Lallensack (who was the lead author of one of the referred papers) for input. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 23:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A new paper, entitled New data on tail lengths and variation along the caudal series in the non-avialan dinosaurs has recently been published in the PeerJ. In it's conclusion after an analysis of a dataset of dinosaur caudal series is that "there is little or no consistent relationship between tail length and snout-sacrum length". This has clear implications for size estimates as used in Paleoart reconstructions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
New model of Psittacosaurus sibircus. In my opinion, it looks much better than the old life restoration by Nobu Tamura. HFoxii ( talk) 11:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This has been added to the article without review I think. Problem is that there is, to my knowledge, no size estimate published in a reliable source. So I think it has to be removed from the article because of WP:OR; what to do with it? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 08:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I guess neornithine birds come under the purview of dinoart, so I thought I'd put it here. Been meaning to do this one for a while. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm far from an expert on ceratopsians, but I figured I'd give one a try with the recently described Menefeeceratops. Here is the size comparison diagram I made for the dinosaur. Comments or concerns? Thanks, SlvrHwk ( talk) 03:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Barrera Guevara recently uploaded two dinosaur skeletals and added them to articles.
I'm far from an expert on skeletal anatomy. Any problems with these? SlvrHwk ( talk) 03:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I restored the thoracic spines that tall, because the conserved sacral and few lumbar vertebrae in "Velafrons" start at a high position posteriorly, only getting taller, which means that the thoracic vertebrae would've had tall neural spines, getting smaller once it reaches the posterior dorsal vertebrae, as the preserved vertebrae shows. This decision was also encouraged by "Magnapaulia laticaudus"' tall neural spines. Which both apear to be sister taxa of eachother (Prieto-Márquez, Chiappe & Joshi, 2012). Once comparing with "Hypacrosaurus altispinus" by Gregaory S. Paul, his H. altispinus does have taller thoracic vertebrae than my Velafrons, also Magnapaulia has proportionally taller nerual spines. This skeletal diagram was also made with the supervision of H. E. Rivera-Sylva. Hopefully this has provided an insight on my skeletal, although it may still be outdated since it is from 2019 after all... Greetings! Daniel Barrera Guevara ( talk) 19:35, 10 June 2021 (GMT)
I thought I should say something about the Sinotyrannus, as nobody else has. From the other skeletal reconstructions and photographs of the fossils that I've seen, it looks pretty good. The shape of the naris is correct, and the amount of material appears to be correct. Now, it looks like Daniel Barrera Guevara also uploaded a skeletal reconstruction of Paraxenisaurus. I don't know enough about this taxon to comment, but I was hoping someone else could? The only real comment I can make is that, unless some other related taxon was different in this regard, deinocheirids didn't possess a hallux. Borophagus ( talk) 08:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile, regarding Paraxenisaurus, to answer Borophagus, Paraxenisaurus did have a hallux, the skeletal was made by commission and collaboration with one of the authors, and I have seen the fossil remains personally, Metatarsal II has the anchor point and point of attachment for the hallux, it is quite intriguing as it is a Ornithomimosaur with a hallux, which no Ornithomimid has this indicating it cannot be an Ornithomimid, and other pedal and manual characteristics do indicate it being a Deinocheirid, like the Metatarsal III, the pedal unguals, the manual ungual, and the prescense of said hallux, or at least the anchor point. And I would like to ask Hemiauchenia, what makes you think Paraxenisaurus' article is of low quality? I have seen the material personally, and it all indicates an Ornithomimosaur or a Deinocheirid. Cau's blog suggests a Therizinosaur, which the holotype does not suggest because of the small hallux anchor point and the pedal phalanges are too long. And thanks for the kind comments regarding the skeletal, I'll soon be doing a new one, Greetings! Daniel Barrera Guevara ( talk) 21:04, 15 June 2021 (GMT)
Lately I've been taking interest for this obscure taxon, so I decided to make new files for its article. Now that I have spare time I uploaded the skeletal and life restoration; any comments? PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 17:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
My current Brachiosaurus skull diagram is almost a direct copy of Carpenter & Tidwell's skull diagram in this paper, thus, I'm working on an update to not only implement new data but to also make it more original (for copyright reasons). The new skull paper went OA awhile ago ( here's a PDF), so now seems like an optimal time to do this. Here's the current work in progress image: [24]. I'm probably going to have to redraw the braincase and fused elements (as I didn't realize how much that unit incorporated when I first drew it). Once I finish this up I'll update the skeletal diagram, it looks like there are some more postcranial bones to add & update as well. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
This image was uploaded and added to the Garrigatitan page by Dr Tututh. The image could be a higher resolution, and the grid doesn't continue to the edge... Any other comments? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm modifying my old Elmisaurus drawing from 2011 [27] to make it more in line with the new skeletal [28] that combines it with Nomingia. That means upwards tilted tail and larger crest, here's a WIP: [29] Any thoughts? Looks like the jaw should also be deep~er. FunkMonk ( talk) 02:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Been planning to finish this one for a reeeeeally long time, and now it just happened. With all the growing research about this taxon, it has become quite clear that both Protoceratops and Bagaceratops were very similar, so a skeletal reconstruction seemed prudent. Any comments? PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 19:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Got some spare time and managed to finish this restoration. I'll leave it here. Looks like a Protoceratops, but certainly not the same. PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 16:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded a drawing of Propanoplosaurus today, unaware of the painting by "Danny Cicchetti" (which I think have some issues: head should be more like that of a horse in shape, the manual unguals should not be so long and sharp, etc.). Any objections to my little guy? Conty~enwiki 20:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have learned that a good paleoartist should base his or her restorations on information from known fossil specimens. Propanoplosaurus are currently only known from a hatchling that only have armour on its head (indicating that bony plates and spikes developed at a later ontogenetic stage). Conty~enwiki 17:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hats of to "Sauriazoicillus" for giving paleoartists the freedom to speculate (though we should take into account the looks of closely related dinosaurs...), but I have been rebuked in the past for my speculative restorations (like my guessed size of an adult Scipionyx back in 2010...). Conty~enwiki 07:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I was obligated to create this section parallel to what is currently being discussed on the paleoart review page. Basically, Gallimimus wikipedista. has been tracing over other copyrighted art to make silhouettes for all of their unreviewed scale diagrams. Furthermore, several of them have substantially unlikely anatomy, such as the long arms of the Indosuchus and the overall allosauroid-like form of the Fukuiraptor. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for the mistakes. I am still a beginner in doing this. Just point out the mistakes and the improvements that should be made. I can also delete the files. Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 14:41, 21 July 2021, (UTC)
With the topic of Bagaceratops it has become clear that other members are also in need of updated restorations. Comments about these? PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 23:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Kingmeatballs and Sauriazoicillus have both uploaded skeletal diagrams of Australotitan and added them to its article. One thing that strikes me as odd about both of them is their very long necks and tails, a characteristic not usually shown in diamantinasaurians, as far as I know. The scapulocoracoids should probably be more vertical in both. The first seems to have an unusually large head, the second seems to have an unusually tall ilium.
Another thing of note, unrelated to the accuracy of the skeletals, is that a size estimate is given in the article, cited to the description paper. However, I cannot find this estimate in it, and it is even stated that: "although it is tempting to produce an estimate of body mass for A. cooperensis based on the preserved and reconstructed stylopodial circumferences we consider that this will not add significant interpretative value to our main purpose of describing this taxon, and comparing it to other members of the Titanosauria from the Winton Formation and semi-contemporaneous faunas", which indicates that the authors were hesitant about estimating overall size. I'm going to go ahead and remove the estimates, though please revert it if I've missed something. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 20:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Many of my hadrosaurid size comparisons were made before I fully understood hadrosaurid anatomy, and frequently show aberrant midline feature scales. When I made (and then re-made) my Gryposaurus size comparison, I was unaware that skin impressions were known for this genus, so I've updated the chart to show this (although they're from a different species, so I'm aware that this may prove to be totally inaccurate in the future). I've redrawn the entire animal, and unfortunately it appears to look a bit more awkward now, I'm not totally sure what's up with that. I plan on adding G. notabilis, G. incurvimanus, and maybe even G. latidens to the chart soon, and then going on to update most of my other hadrosaurids. Any comments on this update or reccomendations for any others? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 23:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Image by user Nobu Tomura. I think the file was put on wikipedia with no revision, according with my quick check on the last revisions of this project. I think the skull is too thin and elongated. And maybe the legs are too big? Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 15:07, 22 July (UTC)
There have been some issues when it comes to the size of Tarchia (see the Tarchia page here on Wikipedia and the description of my new size diagram of ZPAL MgD I/113 for some background). What do you think? Conty~enwiki 17:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I can add visible osteoderms (I took for granted that people could imagine them anyway...). I actually started with a somewhat longer neck, but thought it were too long... but that can be fixed as well. Conty~enwiki 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've illustrated a Hulsanpes running as per the suggested behaviours based on the metatarsals, is this good?
Thank you in advance. Sauriazoicillus ( talk) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
According to the caption in the article Maraapunisaurus, this is "Illustration of M. fragillimus fossils, with an alligator femur (A) for scale, drawn in 1884". However, only the neural arch is attributed to M. fragillimus, so the reader may have a logical question: whose big bones it is next to the M. fragillimus vertebra? HFoxii ( talk) 05:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a useful image, it's 99% speculative... Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
New life restoration of the carcharodontosaurid Taurovenator violantei. How appropriate is it for use in the article? HFoxii ( talk) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's some unreviewed models of Hypsilophodon. Right off the get go I can tell there's multiple issues with the singular model with the tail in the air. Monsieur X ( talk) 05:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Miracusaurs, a relatively new Wiki user, has been recently uploading restorations of various dinosaurs. You can see all of them here. Here are just a few:
I'm wondering about the accuracy of several of these... SlvrHwk ( talk) 03:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
While I'm guilty of using patterns of living animals in restorations myself, the Bonapartenykus looks just a little too close to a modern chicken. It's very conspicuous. What are the chances the exact same configuration of wattles would evolve independently twice? At least the colour could be changed. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this one? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Recently an user uploaded an skeletal of Kurupi, initially created by "clumsystiggy" on Twitter (note that the initial creator has allowed people to use it as long as credit is given). Personally I see a few problems with the silhouette. The head looks a little odd especially with the enlarged osteoderms on its neck and the tail seems really fat and way to bendy. Kingmeatballs ( talk) 01:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
, made this on procreate, added lips, eyes may be a bit too small-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 19:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The single projecting tooth is extremely strange. Lips would probably not cover that much. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 22:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
New life restoration of troodontid theropod Linhevenator tani (compared with cat). HFoxii ( talk) 11:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Here I've made a life reconstruction of Mahakala omnogovae using the skeletal that is currently in the article, is it up to standard?
Thanks in advance for your help Sauriazoicillus 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This looks fantastic, actually. I wouldn't change anything; the watermark is small enough that it isn't distracting from the image so I wouldn't change it. Luxquine ( talk) 01:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In the name of just getting more genera illustrated, I pulled out some old drawings for a school project, from where I have also reused other illustrations for Wikipedia before, and modified them so they could perhaps be used for dromaeosaurid articles here that lack restorations. I was thinking this one [49] could be Kansaignathus, and this one [50] could be Variraptor. Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I forced myself to not spend very much time on this (working on getting faster at producing art) so I'll admit this is a rush job. Feel free to critique. Luxquine ( talk) 01:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
After my failed attempts at making animal size diagrams, I return with an update on my Fukuiraptor kitadaniensis, this time with a more megaraptoran look Do you approve? Gallimimus Wikipedista ( talk) 15:15, 28 November (UTC)
Dakotadon restoration, how accurate is it?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently I was able to find time to reconstruct my older (and pretty garbage) Ozraptor reconstruction. That's about it any thoughts? (left and right ones are the updated pair). Kingmeatballs 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The topic was created by Путаниум. − HFoxii ( talk) 09:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This skeletal restoration by Maurissauro could be used on the Ubirajara page. It would probably be best under " Discovery and naming." Any thoughts before it is added to the page? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 00:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Bivens uploaded this file in May 2020 and apparently it has not been reviewed. I was thinking that this reconstruction might be placed in Discovery and naming, as it has elements of different Spinosaurus specimens, but I think the hand is a bit odd. What do you think? Gallimimus wikipedista. (( talk)) 12:59, 12 September (UTC)
I made this size diagram of herrerasaurids. Thoughts? Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 16:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This hasn't been reviewed yet but is already illustrating the Spinosaurus page. Any comments? Kiwi Rex ( talk) 18:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The old illustration used for the Xuanhuaceratops article seems like it could really use an update, so I made this reconstruction to potentially replace it. Mettiina ( talk) 14:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be the last of our Good Articles that needs an adequate life restoration, which should make it a high priority. FunkMonk ( talk) 04:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
New 3D model of Lambeosaurus magnicristatus. In the future, I, together with Peter Menshikov, want to make an animation of the possible social behavior of lambeosaurines. How do you like it? HFoxii ( talk) 10:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I am planning to make a series with illustrations of the ideas how tyrannosaurids might used their arms and have published my first one. At the beginning of this year, Caneer et.al. (2021) described a fossil track of Tyrannosaurus that would make Lawrence Lambe (who were the first one to propose the hypothesis that the arms were used like this) leaping for joy and declare that "God is a palaeontologist!". Jokes aside: what do you think? Conty~enwiki 09:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The image File:Nanuqsaurus NT small.jpg is used on the page Nanuqsaurus, and it has pines and other conifers in the background. I know that these trees coexisted with Nanuqsaurus in terms of timeframe, but contemporary pinus are not native in Alaska. Did pine exist in the Prince Creek Formation during the Late Cretaceous period? Di (they-them) ( talk) 01:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding the Duriavenator article (with the end goal being WP:FAC), but oddly enough, it's one of the only megalosaurid articles without a size comparison diagram, so any help would be appreciated. Most sources give a 7 metre estimate. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Without any decent singular depictions of Eotyrannus, I decided to upload Nobu Tamura's restorations of the genus. I think the last one is a speculative depiction of a adult Eotyrannus, it also depicts Hypsilophodon. Any thoughts & criticisms? Monsieur X ( talk) 04:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
What a coincident, I started to draw a new version of my Eotyrannus this summer, now uploaded. Is it more "decent"? :-) (regarding the the depiction of the pair, I am planning to replace the one in running pose (a bit too large, I know) with one sniffing in the air). Conty~enwiki 20:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Short tail? Which one of them? Conty~enwiki 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I can fix the tail a bit. 16:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanatotheristes new head-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Restoration of the head of Fylax by Savage Almond, added to (and since removed from) this page. The outline seems particularly rough. SlvrHwk ( talk) 04:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Since 2020, the Qianzhousaurus article uses an illustration by PaleoGeekSquared instead of an restoration by FunkMonk that has been there since 2015. Although both life restorations were reviewed, it was not explained why one should replace the other. Perhaps now is the time to discuss this? HFoxii ( talk) 14:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This restoration by
Ohdear15 was added to the
Brighstoneus article without review. It seems to have several strange anatomical features, but I'll let others with more experience in this field critique it.
SlvrHwk (
talk)
01:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yeah sorry about that. I knew there was a system to get people to review palaeo-reconstructions but didn't know where that system was and couldn't find it. Any feedback would be appreciated so that I can re-make and improve the illustration if need-be :)
DJK (
talk)
04:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I've re-drawn it, this time coloured with markers due to issues I've had with Photoshop crashing every time I try to zoom in. Any feedback would be greaty appreciated :)
DJK (
talk)
02:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Skull reconstruction of Shanag ashile. Missing elements are based on Sinornithosaurus. Wondering if this is good enough for Wikipedia. P2N2222A ( talk) 02:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Reconstructions of Liaoceratops yanzigouensis. Currently the Liaoceratops page only has life reconstruction, no figures of the fossils. Wondering whether it would be better to use skull only version or the version with the outline. P2N2222A ( talk) 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
First image up for review in a while! Decided to upload a drawing I did of Riparovenator per FunkMonk's suggestion. Note: was only meant as a casual quick sketch so there may be errors. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
A new paper formally describes the larger, more robust "Bruno" specimen of Tethyshadros and also disputes Dalla Vecchia's conclusions about tail length. Slate Weasel - if you could update your size comparison to show both the holotype "Antonio" alongside "Bruno", that'd be great. There are skeletals here and a cleaner version in Figure S20 of the supplementary material. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The new page Vectiraptor has no image, and I made File:Homo sapiens VS Vectiraptor greeni size comparison.svg. The image uses this image from the paper as reference for the sizes. I made sure that they were to the same scale. Is it ok to use the file on the page, at least until a better piece of paleoart is made? Di (they-them) ( talk) 02:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Any comments? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a size chart would also be useful? It might be useful to visualize just how tiny it is, just from the scalebar and text even many palaeo enthusiasts such as myself failed to at first put two and two together. Could even do a size chart including Kunbarrasaurus and Antarctopelta as well, both given rough size estimates in the paper and I'm sure in some previous literature too. LittleLazyLass ( Talk | Contributions) 17:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Here is a draft for Stegouros and Antarctopelta, using the same silhouette for both animals. The scaling is approximate. The osteoderms on the back might be a little too square? I copied them directly from the skeletal diagram. Kunbarrasaurus is still on its way. Comments? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 03:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, here is the size comparison diagram for Stegouros! Antarctopelta should come shortly. - SlvrHwk ( talk) 18:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Time to use this again... :-) Conty~enwiki 14:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I have updated my old restoration of Liaoningornis, which became inaccurate back in 2012 as the genus were reclassified as an enantiornithe (see image description for details). I want to draw the holotype fossil stone slab and put it along with the life restoraton in the future, but for now: what do you think? Conty~enwiki 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope that I will get time update it during Christmas holiday. But what colour should I give to the head? Dark reddish-Brown? Conty~enwiki 12:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
As you wished. Conty~enwiki 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I will consider it. Conty~enwiki 07:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
So what colour would you prefer? Conty~enwiki 17:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
User Entelognathus has created some very nice dromaeosaurid reconstructions and it would be good to see them on the Wikipedia pages for these genera. The Microraptor zhaoianus was posted in the non-dinosaur image review section where some corrections were suggested. I would add its right forelimb doesn't look right for two reasons, 1. the second and third manus claws should be visible, and 2. the alula should be covering the first manus claw. The Microraptor gui reconstruction is better at showing the animal's features, but it is missing the alula, its tail is too short and the tail fan doesn't match what is known of Microraptor's tail fan. The Velociraptor reconstruction has the inaccurate palaeoart template with inaccuracies listed. I would add that red shouldn't be visible on its lower jaw. There are also two reconstuctions of "Archaeoraptor" where the Microraptor appear to be the same as in the reconstructions of Microraptor on its own and so they have the same inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:e847:a500:988f:6760:4f6c:9854 ( talk • contribs)
I suggest doing a revision on the wings for all of these illustrations. In all of the fossils of paraves we have as well as in modern birds, the secondaries don’t decrease in length the closer to the body they get. Keep in mind too that the secondaries only attach to the lower arm, not the upper arm which is held almost parallel to the body and has very few tertiaries that act to provide a seamless transition into the body feathers. The shoulder in your microraptor pieces in particular should not be visible, as they’d blend into the body with the feathers. Luxquine ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I love the new M. zhaoianus restoration! The iridescence is very well done. But I'm pretty sure it should have longer primaries than secondaries, like your M. gui. See this fossil: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-representative-Microraptor-zhaoianus-fossil-showing-body-wing-hind-limb-and-tail_fig2_256102089 Miracusaurs ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, sorry it’s been so long! Velociraptor and Microraptor have been updated with better claw anatomy and longer wing feathers respectively. Entelognathus ( talk) 07:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
An updated Majungasaurus size reference using a skeletal by Franoys.
Primeval Artist ( talk) 20:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I Just saw the chart above, this was not intentional. But regardless, a scale chart of Majungasaurus' largest specimen, based on Franoys' skeletal. Eotyrannu5-Returns ( talk) 00:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A happy New Year to all of Wiki's paleoartists! Here is a size diagram of one of last year's most iconic dinosaurs: Tlatolophus. Scaling using the paper's skeletal diagram results in a length of just over the estimated 8 metres (26 ft). Comments? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 00:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
An awesome piece by TinyLongwing ( talk · contribs), however there are a few inaccuracies I would like to bring up to hopefully correct. While the fossil of Lectavis only shows a single bone in the leg, other Enantiornithes with toothed muzzles are shown to have the nostril farther towards the tip of the muzzle rather than closer to the head as was illustrated here. I'm also curious about the the rectrices illustrated in this piece; they look either like a fan of rectrices which Enantiornithes as a whole normally do not have, or even unusually short RDFs not seen in any of our current fossils displaying soft tissue preservation. Other than that it looks fantastic and I hope to see more work from TinyLongwing on Wikipedia! Luxquine ( talk) 07:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia already have a nice restoration it (together with some ceratopsids) I recently decided to update my drawing of Panoplosaurus. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 18:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you IJReid. I will consider your suggestions when I get time to fix it. Conty~enwiki 05:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to nominate this photo for deletion. Longchengornis only has one fossil specimen, the holotype IVPP V10530, which this image incorrectly asserts itself as. Images available in the literature for the actual fossil look nothing like this photo. Luxquine ( talk) 08:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Unreviewed images. As usual, the hands look bad but the second image was already cropped. The first one seems unusable. Kiwi Rex ( talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I made a few quick drawings of some fragmentary Enantiornithes (as they don't really warrant any more effort than that). All are drawn with similar patterns in reference to the fact that they used to be considered in the same family (Alexornithidae). Let me know what needs changing. Luxquine ( talk) 01:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Its nothing major, but I just realized that in File:Coelophysis rhodesiensis.JPG, the ear is in the wrong spot. (it's forwards in the inferior temporal fenestra instead of behind the quadratojugal). Its a cool illustration though, so what do you guys think should be done? Maybe have @ MonsieurX: fix it, since they've edited the image convincingly before. Hiroizmeh ( talk) 23:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I finished this illustration of Eoalulavis a while ago and thought it is time to get it checked. I often find fossil bird restorations more difficult (given how much the plumage can vary in "thickness" and therefore also the body outline) and have been thinking that it wculd be a good idea to start restoring them together with their fossils. What to improve? Conty~enwiki 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I will think about the colour of the fossil. Anyone having issues with the life restoration? Conty~enwiki 07:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Lythronaxargestes and Luxquine. Before editing, I would like to explain some of the details you point out, to see if you will still have issues with them: the fossil drawing in my illustration is carefully drawn by hand from the fossil photo in the original paper (I have tried to imitate some of the light/dark parts and "outline" in the photo as well: perhaps I should just make the skeleton in my drawing grey instead of beige?). Regarding the life restoration (which is partly based on kingfishers and fippers, see image description), I can remove the tail feathers if you wish. Regarding the head, I think your feeling that the eyes are place far back on the head is because I imagined the skull to have been a bit elongated preorbitally (like this Sulcavis skull restoration), as that would be beneficial to a bird feeding like modern kingfishers and dippers. If you think the eyes are too small, compare it to a kingfisher. I am aware that Enantiornithes had nostrils, but would they have been visible? If we look at modern birds, their nostrils are usually surrounded by bare skin) or (as I tried to create with my Eoalulavis), covered in feathers. The wings in my life restoration does not stop around the hip, but are meant to stop at the base of the tail. Conty~enwiki 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! I will start to edit my drawing. I am aware that arguments made by David Peters are problematic (perhaps I should have told you that from the start…), but his skull drawing happened to resemble what I imagined for my Eoalulavis. And yes, the fossil hit content of crustaceans were also part of my inspiration. Conty~enwiki 08:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I decided to follow the advice of FunkMonk and create a version without the holotype fossil (if FunkMonk think an actual photo of the fossil would be better than a fossil drawing, we first have to find one that we are allowed to publish on Wikimedia...), and tried to create a more Charadriiform-like appearance. I have edited the plumage appearance and colour, the eyes (size, colour), shape of the snout (the same length as before, but much thinner. The feathers are now covering the whole antorbital fenestra. If you think it would look better with more extensive covering of the snout, please tell me), length of the legs (made longer) and the tail feathers (removed). If you want to compare to yourself, look HERE. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 06:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Luxquine! I will consider shortening of the snout. Conty~enwiki 20:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This image was added to the Carnotaurus page in November 2021, surrepetitiously replacing the old restoration by User:Fred Wierum. While I have no objections about the anatomy (it's perfect and realistic), I am concerned about how the artist's socials are clearly displayed on the bottom right corner. It makes it feel that it was added in the spirit of self-promotion. What do we do about this? Miracusaurs ( talk) 07:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I dug up an old titanosaur illustration [64] I had done for another project and tried to improve the anatomy (sauropod anatomy is not my strongest point, and it's still very much a WIP) so it could be used here. But it was drawn pretty generically, so it could be a number of genera that we don't have illustrations of yet. Any suggestions/requests for what it could be? Looking around what needs illustrations, perhaps it could be Atsinganosaurus, Lirainosaurus, Mendozasaurus, or similar. FunkMonk ( talk) 02:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I added this life restoration of Linhevenator tani to the Linhevenator page. FunkMonk pointed out that this should image should have been reviewed. I am not sure it this should be taken down from the Linhevneator page until the review is finished, but FunkMonk did not take it down. I'm also not sure how long review should take, but I don't really care (even if the page will have to go without a restoration for a while); I just want to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks FunkMonk for pointing this and that fossils are preferred in the taxobox (which makes a lot of sense thinking about it).
I edited the primary feather angles so they anchor more proximally along the second finger because the angles of some of them looked as if they were attached more distally than the claw. I am not sure if this is what Lythronaxargestes meant, but this was definitely something that needed improvement. I also made the longer hindlimb feathers look more pennaceous. Right now the image is not updating to the new version in some places. I am not sure why, but if you can not see the new version you can see it under the current version in the file history at the [ Wikimedia Commons file] until I find out what is going on. I'm not sure if this is the result of some sort of lag or if it is something on my part. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 ( talk) 21:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This skeletal, labeled as Camarasaurus, is in fact of Brontomerus. It's modified from a Camarasaurus skeletal, but if you compare it to Hartman's Camarasaurus skeletal [66], you'll note that the shapes of the scapula and ilium have been modified to match Brontomerus. Either it needs to have its name changed or it should be modified to have a Camarasaurus-shaped ilium and scapula. Ornithopsis ( talk) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's a size diagram of Isisaurus using Scott Hartman's new skeletal diagram as a reference for proportions and size. Isisaurus is quite a bizarre animal! Apparently, it has been notoriously difficult to scale and reconstruct because of inconsistencies between measurements and scale bars. Hartman's diagram results in a length of ~12m, but Greg Paul's estimate in the Princeton Field Guide is significantly higher (18m). The current life restoration is marked as inaccurate, so the page could benefit from a more up-to-date depiction. Comments? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 04:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Just checking if this is accurate or not, I decided to give it more "basal" traits (deeper skull and shorter neural spines) based on the phylogenetic analysis. Sauriazoicillus ( talk) 09:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The skeletal currently on the Gannansaurus page is accurate (as far as I know) but very crudely drawn. I have made a neater skeletal based on the figures in the paper that described the genus. Outline is based on related Euhelopus by Gunnar Bivens (CC-BY). Feedback/corrections appreciated.
Flipped the backwards caudal vertebra and fixed scaling. Remind me not to make skeletals until I've had at least 4 cups of coffee. P2N2222A ( talk) 00:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Cropped and rearranged, per your suggestion. I put my name and handle on skeletals because I have had my work reposted/reused without credit before, but I removed per your request. I also flipped to make a left-facing version, which I uploaded as a separate file. P2N2222A ( talk) 01:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
This life restoration was added to the article without review, replacing another restoration that was drawn in MS Paint. I would say that the head looks rather strange. HFoxii ( talk) 14:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Vectiraptor size comparison with human. Anything I can change about the composition? 86.12.246.246 ( talk) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have updated the Eosinopteryx restoration I made in 2013, updating some proportions (in particular, head and forelimbs) and the position of the wings. The paper describing the genus and containing images of the fossil is referenced in the file's description page. Also, since this dinosaur is now considered an anchiornithid I tried to add a couple of extra details, such as a more irregular wing feather distribution and a more fluffy plumage (though I'm not sure I've properly achieved that). -- El fosilmaníaco ( talk) 19:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
It's time for some new rebbachisaurid skeletals this time around! Rebbachisaurus is pretty fragmentary, but it is quite obviously exceedingly weird: [1]. I've filled in the unknown regions with Demandasaurus and Nigersaurus, but the former has made the tail extremely long. Any thoughts on this? I've excluded one of the caudals, as it was not figured (I could try to add it in if desired), and I've neglected to reconstruct the unknown parts of the neural spine-only dorsals, the humerus, and the sacrum (I'll probably restore the first two elements, but the sacrum feels too poorly known to do this for). Any comments on this project? I've also been working on Comahuesaurus: [2] The femur is just a placeholder stolen from my Demandasaurus (again), and a chevron is currently missing (I think I'll have to take that from Demandasaurus too to get a lateral view). The apendicular elements all look like they could belong to a single individual (Comahuesaurus is known from a bonebed), but some of the caudal vertebrae look suspiciously huge (and maybe the posterior dorsal material as well). Any recommendations for how to compensate for this? Any other comments on these projects? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 23:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
This is just labeled Yangchuanosaurus with no species identification. What is this? And is it accurate? I'm asking because the two Y. shangyouensis skeleton mount images on page Yangchuanosaurus are definitely incorrect as they deviate radically from the actual fossil. I guessed other Yangchuanosaurus mounts were probably inaccurate too. Kiwi Rex ( talk) 04:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
So the user Mariolanzas is "back", so to speak, and he made this new restoration of Diamantinasaurus and added it to the article directly [4]. As we all know, he doesn't submit his artwork to be reviewed, so I'm putting it here now. I don't really know much about Diamantinasaurus, so it's up to you guys to correct something if necessary. JurassicClassic767 ( talk | contribs) 20:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
This image comes from Padian and Chiappe (1998), which actually says the left clavicles are those of Segisaurus, not Coelophysis (because "No Coelophysis clavicles are well preserved" (10.1038/scientificamerican0298-38). More recently, a Coelophysis bauri furcula was described (10.1007/BF02988391) Kiwi Rex ( talk) 00:12, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
On the Wikipedia page for Hollanda luceria is a reconstruction of the animal as a member of Ornithurae, which is now considered to be incorrect based on the current placement of the animal in Enantiornithes. I reconstructed H. luceria as an Enantiornithine to update the page. Let me know if anything needs changing. Luxquine ( talk) 01:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
While I have not finished Katepensaurus, I have nevertheless completed another rebbachisaurid skeletal. While all of the holotypic material is figured in lateral view in the description paper, none of the paratype material is shown or even really described at all, so I have omitted it. Any comments on the skeletal? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 15:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
No comments on the skeletal itself, but I would include a unit for the scale bar on the image in case the viewer doesn’t care to look at the caption. Luxquine ( talk) 22:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I’ve created a page for the genus Parvavis, as we didn’t seem to have anything about them on Wikipedia aside from a brief mention in the Enantiornithes page. I have also created this image to supplement the article. While I don’t think I’ve forgotten anything, let me know if something needs changing. Luxquine ( talk) 22:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
As Conty~enwiki pointed out on my talk page, the juvenile Saichania specimen has actually been reassigned to Pinacosaurus indet., meaning that it will have to be removed from this size chart. I've been trying to figure out what to base the adult Saichania' postcranium on instead. I'm thinking that Pinacosaurus might be the go-to taxon for this, but I'm still indecisive, so I thought that I'd post this here. Any recommendations? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
New model of the basal neotheropod Notatesseraeraptor frickensis! HFoxii ( talk) 07:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Part of my work on the Comahuesaurus skeletal involved me making a new Lavocatisaurus silhouette. Two years ago, I used an older version of this silhouette that I no longer consider accurate for many of my rebbachisaurid skeletals. Amazonsaurus was one of these, and I've recently overhauled its skeletal diagram to incorporate these new predicted proportions. Any comments? If this update is seen as an improvement, I'll also apply it to my Xenoposeidon skeletal. I also plan on updating my Limaysaurus skeletal and cross-checking the reconstructed regions against those of other rebbachisaurids. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps someone will be interested in making a diagram displaying well-known material of the skin of the hadrosaurids based on this [8] ( [9]). I think it would be really useful for articles about the illustrated taxa. HFoxii ( talk) 03:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Kenneth Carpenter recently uploaded an image of the known material of Cedarosaurus laid out, which inspired me to revisit this old diagram and renovate it a bit. I've uploaded an updated version of this chart based on the aforementioned photograph, using Hartman's (honestly rather odd) Cedarosaurus skeletal to fill in the missing parts (I also somehow broke the information template - does anyone know what went wrong?). I scaled the animal to the length of the femur, and the overall size matches Paul's 15m estimate pretty well. Any comments? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This (p. 289) is the only published reconstruction of Lurdusaurus I'm aware of. The one we have right now seems too limber and it's stomach is too high off the ground. User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 21:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Mario has recently uploaded a new reconstruction of Concavenator. Any thoughts? A marked improvement in some aspects, but the more astute out there can probably spot some anatomical issues that I don't know about. Though I question the visible fenestrae. Monsieur X ( talk) 08:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey how's it going fellas. So, I'm currently working on a very large and quite difficult expansion for Protoceratops and noticed the aggresive lack of up-to-date restorations for this arguably well-known dinosaur. Not long ago I submitted a restoration of P. andrewsi from DeviantArt so..... There are many papers to cover (expansion about 50% done) regarding its paleobiology and it would be nice to have restorations depicting things like its reproductive life, intraspecific varitions, etc. Restoration requests:
Some of the best references online for the overall anatomy of Protoceratops may be Scott Hartman's skeletal [14] and Matt Dempsey's muscle studies [15]. I would like to do these but I'm terrible at ornithiscians and perspective. I hope it's not too much trouble! PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 16:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Personally i think this looks better than the current art but i will leave it up to you guys Jakegaming7788 ( talk) 19:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Added by Ifory without review. This has replaced Headden's 2011 skeletal. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
For some reason, no one have made a restoration of Gargoyleosaurus to Wikipedia. I have worked carefully to get the body shape and angles correct. I also wanted to give it some enviorement to be in. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 20:04, 20 March 2021
Amen to that, problem fixed (oh-oh, I saw that user Jonagold2000 made a nice restoration of this one last year...) Conty~enwiki 06:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I can understand that, but you can take a look at the skull in the original paper if you want to. 13:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Just want you to know, Dr. Carpenter have looked at my restoration: he argue that Gargoyleosaurus had a beak. Conty~enwiki 06:16, 1 April 2021
The Deltadromeus skeletal in the big Kem Kem paper reconstructed it as an elaphrosaurine noasaurid, so I decided that it was time to update my size chart for it. I primarily used Gualicho to fill in the gaps (mainly the hands and feet), whereas I used a combination of Masiakasaurus and Limusaurus (which were actually more similar than I thought) for the head and neck. I considered re-adding the huge destroyed femur, but I ultimately decided against it as it is destroyed, not too similar to that of the holotype's, and here results in an animal a little over 15m long! I'll also update my silhouette, which, I hate to admit, is pretty much just a streched-out skinny Allosaurus with its lacrimal horns removed. Any thoughts on this new silhouette? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 18:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, it's been a long time since I've been here but I'd love to try and get back into donating illustrations for Wikipedia. I'm looking to work on a new piece for Suchomimus. I feel like it needs a polished, updated bit of art to the page. What I have here is a rough sketch. Any and all criticisms are encouraged. Forgive me if I've typed things out incorrectly here on the forum, I'm still rusty when it comes to typing things here. -- Fred Wierum
Hello again, it's been a while...again. Ive finally managed to work on fully illustrating this piece for the page. Let me know if there's anything that needs correcting. -- Fred Wierum 03:31, 22 March 2022
I'm making this case after this representation of Tlatolophus galorum:
.
This is a case of plagiarism and inaccurate anatomical representation of the species. The wikimedia illustration depicted is a direct copy trace from the original paper: Ramírez-Velasco, Á. A., Aguilar, F. J., Hernández-Rivera, R., Maussán, J. L. G., Rodríguez, M. L., & Alvarado-Ortega, J. (2021). Tlatolophus galorum, gen. et sp. nov., a parasaurolophini dinosaur from the upper Campanian of the Cerro del Pueblo Formation, Coahuila, northern Mexico. Cretaceous Research, 104884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cretres.2021.104884
This is the Figure 1. Of the paper. And as we can see, the picture is a direct trace from the skeletal silhouette.
Besides the obvious plagiarism case. The adressed reconstruction does not present any anatomical highlights. Listed as follows:
The skin does not show the scaly integument known in this group of dinosaurs. The tail margin has the same problems the silhouette of Ramírez-Velasco et al. (2021) has, namely, a lower margin with a weird ondulation. The feet does not display any distinguishable toes or ungueals. The manus is a blunt tube with no distinguishable features, such as fingers or claws/ungueals. The eyeball is placed on the jugal bone, and not in the orbit. And finally, the bony crest does not follow the correct shape of the skull.
Therefore. And after the evidence listed here. I suggest that the picture should be adressed by the community to determine its value, and possibly adding a warning of missrepresentation or if necessary, removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberto Díaz Sibaja ( talk • contribs)
Our current Plateosaurus size comparison does not include P. gracilis, so I've created a size comparison for this species ( [22]), based primarily on Yates (2003), with Mallison (2010) being used to fill in some missing information for the fingers. I'm not entirely sure what to do in this instance, should I upload a separate size comparison for P. gracilis to complement our current one or should I try to add P. trossingensis to this chart instead? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 21:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
After discovering that some adult Plateosaurus trossingensis were more than twice as long as other adult Plateosaurus trossingensis, I decided to add P. trossingensis to my chart. Mallison (2010) was very helpful for figuring out how to realistically pose the animal. I've uploaded the chart with the added species, any comments? Creating the head for P. trossingensis was a bit tricky, as pretty much all skulls of this species seem to be more or less crushed somehow. Pinging Jens Lallensack (who was the lead author of one of the referred papers) for input. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 23:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
A new paper, entitled New data on tail lengths and variation along the caudal series in the non-avialan dinosaurs has recently been published in the PeerJ. In it's conclusion after an analysis of a dataset of dinosaur caudal series is that "there is little or no consistent relationship between tail length and snout-sacrum length". This has clear implications for size estimates as used in Paleoart reconstructions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
New model of Psittacosaurus sibircus. In my opinion, it looks much better than the old life restoration by Nobu Tamura. HFoxii ( talk) 11:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
This has been added to the article without review I think. Problem is that there is, to my knowledge, no size estimate published in a reliable source. So I think it has to be removed from the article because of WP:OR; what to do with it? -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 08:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I guess neornithine birds come under the purview of dinoart, so I thought I'd put it here. Been meaning to do this one for a while. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm far from an expert on ceratopsians, but I figured I'd give one a try with the recently described Menefeeceratops. Here is the size comparison diagram I made for the dinosaur. Comments or concerns? Thanks, SlvrHwk ( talk) 03:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Daniel Barrera Guevara recently uploaded two dinosaur skeletals and added them to articles.
I'm far from an expert on skeletal anatomy. Any problems with these? SlvrHwk ( talk) 03:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I restored the thoracic spines that tall, because the conserved sacral and few lumbar vertebrae in "Velafrons" start at a high position posteriorly, only getting taller, which means that the thoracic vertebrae would've had tall neural spines, getting smaller once it reaches the posterior dorsal vertebrae, as the preserved vertebrae shows. This decision was also encouraged by "Magnapaulia laticaudus"' tall neural spines. Which both apear to be sister taxa of eachother (Prieto-Márquez, Chiappe & Joshi, 2012). Once comparing with "Hypacrosaurus altispinus" by Gregaory S. Paul, his H. altispinus does have taller thoracic vertebrae than my Velafrons, also Magnapaulia has proportionally taller nerual spines. This skeletal diagram was also made with the supervision of H. E. Rivera-Sylva. Hopefully this has provided an insight on my skeletal, although it may still be outdated since it is from 2019 after all... Greetings! Daniel Barrera Guevara ( talk) 19:35, 10 June 2021 (GMT)
I thought I should say something about the Sinotyrannus, as nobody else has. From the other skeletal reconstructions and photographs of the fossils that I've seen, it looks pretty good. The shape of the naris is correct, and the amount of material appears to be correct. Now, it looks like Daniel Barrera Guevara also uploaded a skeletal reconstruction of Paraxenisaurus. I don't know enough about this taxon to comment, but I was hoping someone else could? The only real comment I can make is that, unless some other related taxon was different in this regard, deinocheirids didn't possess a hallux. Borophagus ( talk) 08:57, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile, regarding Paraxenisaurus, to answer Borophagus, Paraxenisaurus did have a hallux, the skeletal was made by commission and collaboration with one of the authors, and I have seen the fossil remains personally, Metatarsal II has the anchor point and point of attachment for the hallux, it is quite intriguing as it is a Ornithomimosaur with a hallux, which no Ornithomimid has this indicating it cannot be an Ornithomimid, and other pedal and manual characteristics do indicate it being a Deinocheirid, like the Metatarsal III, the pedal unguals, the manual ungual, and the prescense of said hallux, or at least the anchor point. And I would like to ask Hemiauchenia, what makes you think Paraxenisaurus' article is of low quality? I have seen the material personally, and it all indicates an Ornithomimosaur or a Deinocheirid. Cau's blog suggests a Therizinosaur, which the holotype does not suggest because of the small hallux anchor point and the pedal phalanges are too long. And thanks for the kind comments regarding the skeletal, I'll soon be doing a new one, Greetings! Daniel Barrera Guevara ( talk) 21:04, 15 June 2021 (GMT)
Lately I've been taking interest for this obscure taxon, so I decided to make new files for its article. Now that I have spare time I uploaded the skeletal and life restoration; any comments? PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 17:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
My current Brachiosaurus skull diagram is almost a direct copy of Carpenter & Tidwell's skull diagram in this paper, thus, I'm working on an update to not only implement new data but to also make it more original (for copyright reasons). The new skull paper went OA awhile ago ( here's a PDF), so now seems like an optimal time to do this. Here's the current work in progress image: [24]. I'm probably going to have to redraw the braincase and fused elements (as I didn't realize how much that unit incorporated when I first drew it). Once I finish this up I'll update the skeletal diagram, it looks like there are some more postcranial bones to add & update as well. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 22:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
This image was uploaded and added to the Garrigatitan page by Dr Tututh. The image could be a higher resolution, and the grid doesn't continue to the edge... Any other comments? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm modifying my old Elmisaurus drawing from 2011 [27] to make it more in line with the new skeletal [28] that combines it with Nomingia. That means upwards tilted tail and larger crest, here's a WIP: [29] Any thoughts? Looks like the jaw should also be deep~er. FunkMonk ( talk) 02:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Been planning to finish this one for a reeeeeally long time, and now it just happened. With all the growing research about this taxon, it has become quite clear that both Protoceratops and Bagaceratops were very similar, so a skeletal reconstruction seemed prudent. Any comments? PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 19:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Got some spare time and managed to finish this restoration. I'll leave it here. Looks like a Protoceratops, but certainly not the same. PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 16:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I uploaded a drawing of Propanoplosaurus today, unaware of the painting by "Danny Cicchetti" (which I think have some issues: head should be more like that of a horse in shape, the manual unguals should not be so long and sharp, etc.). Any objections to my little guy? Conty~enwiki 20:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I have learned that a good paleoartist should base his or her restorations on information from known fossil specimens. Propanoplosaurus are currently only known from a hatchling that only have armour on its head (indicating that bony plates and spikes developed at a later ontogenetic stage). Conty~enwiki 17:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Hats of to "Sauriazoicillus" for giving paleoartists the freedom to speculate (though we should take into account the looks of closely related dinosaurs...), but I have been rebuked in the past for my speculative restorations (like my guessed size of an adult Scipionyx back in 2010...). Conty~enwiki 07:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I was obligated to create this section parallel to what is currently being discussed on the paleoart review page. Basically, Gallimimus wikipedista. has been tracing over other copyrighted art to make silhouettes for all of their unreviewed scale diagrams. Furthermore, several of them have substantially unlikely anatomy, such as the long arms of the Indosuchus and the overall allosauroid-like form of the Fukuiraptor. Fanboyphilosopher ( talk) 17:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for the mistakes. I am still a beginner in doing this. Just point out the mistakes and the improvements that should be made. I can also delete the files. Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 14:41, 21 July 2021, (UTC)
With the topic of Bagaceratops it has become clear that other members are also in need of updated restorations. Comments about these? PaleoNeolitic ( talk) 23:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Kingmeatballs and Sauriazoicillus have both uploaded skeletal diagrams of Australotitan and added them to its article. One thing that strikes me as odd about both of them is their very long necks and tails, a characteristic not usually shown in diamantinasaurians, as far as I know. The scapulocoracoids should probably be more vertical in both. The first seems to have an unusually large head, the second seems to have an unusually tall ilium.
Another thing of note, unrelated to the accuracy of the skeletals, is that a size estimate is given in the article, cited to the description paper. However, I cannot find this estimate in it, and it is even stated that: "although it is tempting to produce an estimate of body mass for A. cooperensis based on the preserved and reconstructed stylopodial circumferences we consider that this will not add significant interpretative value to our main purpose of describing this taxon, and comparing it to other members of the Titanosauria from the Winton Formation and semi-contemporaneous faunas", which indicates that the authors were hesitant about estimating overall size. I'm going to go ahead and remove the estimates, though please revert it if I've missed something. -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 20:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Many of my hadrosaurid size comparisons were made before I fully understood hadrosaurid anatomy, and frequently show aberrant midline feature scales. When I made (and then re-made) my Gryposaurus size comparison, I was unaware that skin impressions were known for this genus, so I've updated the chart to show this (although they're from a different species, so I'm aware that this may prove to be totally inaccurate in the future). I've redrawn the entire animal, and unfortunately it appears to look a bit more awkward now, I'm not totally sure what's up with that. I plan on adding G. notabilis, G. incurvimanus, and maybe even G. latidens to the chart soon, and then going on to update most of my other hadrosaurids. Any comments on this update or reccomendations for any others? -- Slate Weasel ⟨ T - C - S⟩ 23:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Image by user Nobu Tomura. I think the file was put on wikipedia with no revision, according with my quick check on the last revisions of this project. I think the skull is too thin and elongated. And maybe the legs are too big? Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 15:07, 22 July (UTC)
There have been some issues when it comes to the size of Tarchia (see the Tarchia page here on Wikipedia and the description of my new size diagram of ZPAL MgD I/113 for some background). What do you think? Conty~enwiki 17:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I can add visible osteoderms (I took for granted that people could imagine them anyway...). I actually started with a somewhat longer neck, but thought it were too long... but that can be fixed as well. Conty~enwiki 19:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I've illustrated a Hulsanpes running as per the suggested behaviours based on the metatarsals, is this good?
Thank you in advance. Sauriazoicillus ( talk) 13:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
According to the caption in the article Maraapunisaurus, this is "Illustration of M. fragillimus fossils, with an alligator femur (A) for scale, drawn in 1884". However, only the neural arch is attributed to M. fragillimus, so the reader may have a logical question: whose big bones it is next to the M. fragillimus vertebra? HFoxii ( talk) 05:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a useful image, it's 99% speculative... Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 18:09, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
New life restoration of the carcharodontosaurid Taurovenator violantei. How appropriate is it for use in the article? HFoxii ( talk) 16:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Here's some unreviewed models of Hypsilophodon. Right off the get go I can tell there's multiple issues with the singular model with the tail in the air. Monsieur X ( talk) 05:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Miracusaurs, a relatively new Wiki user, has been recently uploading restorations of various dinosaurs. You can see all of them here. Here are just a few:
I'm wondering about the accuracy of several of these... SlvrHwk ( talk) 03:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
While I'm guilty of using patterns of living animals in restorations myself, the Bonapartenykus looks just a little too close to a modern chicken. It's very conspicuous. What are the chances the exact same configuration of wattles would evolve independently twice? At least the colour could be changed. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this one? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Recently an user uploaded an skeletal of Kurupi, initially created by "clumsystiggy" on Twitter (note that the initial creator has allowed people to use it as long as credit is given). Personally I see a few problems with the silhouette. The head looks a little odd especially with the enlarged osteoderms on its neck and the tail seems really fat and way to bendy. Kingmeatballs ( talk) 01:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
, made this on procreate, added lips, eyes may be a bit too small-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 19:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
The single projecting tooth is extremely strange. Lips would probably not cover that much. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 22:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
New life restoration of troodontid theropod Linhevenator tani (compared with cat). HFoxii ( talk) 11:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Here I've made a life reconstruction of Mahakala omnogovae using the skeletal that is currently in the article, is it up to standard?
Thanks in advance for your help Sauriazoicillus 10:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
This looks fantastic, actually. I wouldn't change anything; the watermark is small enough that it isn't distracting from the image so I wouldn't change it. Luxquine ( talk) 01:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
In the name of just getting more genera illustrated, I pulled out some old drawings for a school project, from where I have also reused other illustrations for Wikipedia before, and modified them so they could perhaps be used for dromaeosaurid articles here that lack restorations. I was thinking this one [49] could be Kansaignathus, and this one [50] could be Variraptor. Any thoughts? FunkMonk ( talk) 01:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I forced myself to not spend very much time on this (working on getting faster at producing art) so I'll admit this is a rush job. Feel free to critique. Luxquine ( talk) 01:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
After my failed attempts at making animal size diagrams, I return with an update on my Fukuiraptor kitadaniensis, this time with a more megaraptoran look Do you approve? Gallimimus Wikipedista ( talk) 15:15, 28 November (UTC)
Dakotadon restoration, how accurate is it?-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 18:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Recently I was able to find time to reconstruct my older (and pretty garbage) Ozraptor reconstruction. That's about it any thoughts? (left and right ones are the updated pair). Kingmeatballs 12:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The topic was created by Путаниум. − HFoxii ( talk) 09:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
This skeletal restoration by Maurissauro could be used on the Ubirajara page. It would probably be best under " Discovery and naming." Any thoughts before it is added to the page? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 00:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Bivens uploaded this file in May 2020 and apparently it has not been reviewed. I was thinking that this reconstruction might be placed in Discovery and naming, as it has elements of different Spinosaurus specimens, but I think the hand is a bit odd. What do you think? Gallimimus wikipedista. (( talk)) 12:59, 12 September (UTC)
I made this size diagram of herrerasaurids. Thoughts? Gallimimus wikipedista. ( talk) 16:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
This hasn't been reviewed yet but is already illustrating the Spinosaurus page. Any comments? Kiwi Rex ( talk) 18:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
The old illustration used for the Xuanhuaceratops article seems like it could really use an update, so I made this reconstruction to potentially replace it. Mettiina ( talk) 14:50, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be the last of our Good Articles that needs an adequate life restoration, which should make it a high priority. FunkMonk ( talk) 04:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
New 3D model of Lambeosaurus magnicristatus. In the future, I, together with Peter Menshikov, want to make an animation of the possible social behavior of lambeosaurines. How do you like it? HFoxii ( talk) 10:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
I am planning to make a series with illustrations of the ideas how tyrannosaurids might used their arms and have published my first one. At the beginning of this year, Caneer et.al. (2021) described a fossil track of Tyrannosaurus that would make Lawrence Lambe (who were the first one to propose the hypothesis that the arms were used like this) leaping for joy and declare that "God is a palaeontologist!". Jokes aside: what do you think? Conty~enwiki 09:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 03:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
The image File:Nanuqsaurus NT small.jpg is used on the page Nanuqsaurus, and it has pines and other conifers in the background. I know that these trees coexisted with Nanuqsaurus in terms of timeframe, but contemporary pinus are not native in Alaska. Did pine exist in the Prince Creek Formation during the Late Cretaceous period? Di (they-them) ( talk) 01:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm currently expanding the Duriavenator article (with the end goal being WP:FAC), but oddly enough, it's one of the only megalosaurid articles without a size comparison diagram, so any help would be appreciated. Most sources give a 7 metre estimate. FunkMonk ( talk) 08:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Without any decent singular depictions of Eotyrannus, I decided to upload Nobu Tamura's restorations of the genus. I think the last one is a speculative depiction of a adult Eotyrannus, it also depicts Hypsilophodon. Any thoughts & criticisms? Monsieur X ( talk) 04:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
What a coincident, I started to draw a new version of my Eotyrannus this summer, now uploaded. Is it more "decent"? :-) (regarding the the depiction of the pair, I am planning to replace the one in running pose (a bit too large, I know) with one sniffing in the air). Conty~enwiki 20:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
Short tail? Which one of them? Conty~enwiki 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I can fix the tail a bit. 16:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanatotheristes new head-- Bubblesorg ( talk) 21:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Restoration of the head of Fylax by Savage Almond, added to (and since removed from) this page. The outline seems particularly rough. SlvrHwk ( talk) 04:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Since 2020, the Qianzhousaurus article uses an illustration by PaleoGeekSquared instead of an restoration by FunkMonk that has been there since 2015. Although both life restorations were reviewed, it was not explained why one should replace the other. Perhaps now is the time to discuss this? HFoxii ( talk) 14:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
This restoration by
Ohdear15 was added to the
Brighstoneus article without review. It seems to have several strange anatomical features, but I'll let others with more experience in this field critique it.
SlvrHwk (
talk)
01:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, yeah sorry about that. I knew there was a system to get people to review palaeo-reconstructions but didn't know where that system was and couldn't find it. Any feedback would be appreciated so that I can re-make and improve the illustration if need-be :)
DJK (
talk)
04:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I've re-drawn it, this time coloured with markers due to issues I've had with Photoshop crashing every time I try to zoom in. Any feedback would be greaty appreciated :)
DJK (
talk)
02:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Skull reconstruction of Shanag ashile. Missing elements are based on Sinornithosaurus. Wondering if this is good enough for Wikipedia. P2N2222A ( talk) 02:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Reconstructions of Liaoceratops yanzigouensis. Currently the Liaoceratops page only has life reconstruction, no figures of the fossils. Wondering whether it would be better to use skull only version or the version with the outline. P2N2222A ( talk) 14:50, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
First image up for review in a while! Decided to upload a drawing I did of Riparovenator per FunkMonk's suggestion. Note: was only meant as a casual quick sketch so there may be errors. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 12:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
A new paper formally describes the larger, more robust "Bruno" specimen of Tethyshadros and also disputes Dalla Vecchia's conclusions about tail length. Slate Weasel - if you could update your size comparison to show both the holotype "Antonio" alongside "Bruno", that'd be great. There are skeletals here and a cleaner version in Figure S20 of the supplementary material. Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 22:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The new page Vectiraptor has no image, and I made File:Homo sapiens VS Vectiraptor greeni size comparison.svg. The image uses this image from the paper as reference for the sizes. I made sure that they were to the same scale. Is it ok to use the file on the page, at least until a better piece of paleoart is made? Di (they-them) ( talk) 02:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Any comments? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps a size chart would also be useful? It might be useful to visualize just how tiny it is, just from the scalebar and text even many palaeo enthusiasts such as myself failed to at first put two and two together. Could even do a size chart including Kunbarrasaurus and Antarctopelta as well, both given rough size estimates in the paper and I'm sure in some previous literature too. LittleLazyLass ( Talk | Contributions) 17:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Here is a draft for Stegouros and Antarctopelta, using the same silhouette for both animals. The scaling is approximate. The osteoderms on the back might be a little too square? I copied them directly from the skeletal diagram. Kunbarrasaurus is still on its way. Comments? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 03:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, here is the size comparison diagram for Stegouros! Antarctopelta should come shortly. - SlvrHwk ( talk) 18:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Time to use this again... :-) Conty~enwiki 14:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I have updated my old restoration of Liaoningornis, which became inaccurate back in 2012 as the genus were reclassified as an enantiornithe (see image description for details). I want to draw the holotype fossil stone slab and put it along with the life restoraton in the future, but for now: what do you think? Conty~enwiki 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope that I will get time update it during Christmas holiday. But what colour should I give to the head? Dark reddish-Brown? Conty~enwiki 12:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
As you wished. Conty~enwiki 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I will consider it. Conty~enwiki 07:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
So what colour would you prefer? Conty~enwiki 17:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
User Entelognathus has created some very nice dromaeosaurid reconstructions and it would be good to see them on the Wikipedia pages for these genera. The Microraptor zhaoianus was posted in the non-dinosaur image review section where some corrections were suggested. I would add its right forelimb doesn't look right for two reasons, 1. the second and third manus claws should be visible, and 2. the alula should be covering the first manus claw. The Microraptor gui reconstruction is better at showing the animal's features, but it is missing the alula, its tail is too short and the tail fan doesn't match what is known of Microraptor's tail fan. The Velociraptor reconstruction has the inaccurate palaeoart template with inaccuracies listed. I would add that red shouldn't be visible on its lower jaw. There are also two reconstuctions of "Archaeoraptor" where the Microraptor appear to be the same as in the reconstructions of Microraptor on its own and so they have the same inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:e847:a500:988f:6760:4f6c:9854 ( talk • contribs)
I suggest doing a revision on the wings for all of these illustrations. In all of the fossils of paraves we have as well as in modern birds, the secondaries don’t decrease in length the closer to the body they get. Keep in mind too that the secondaries only attach to the lower arm, not the upper arm which is held almost parallel to the body and has very few tertiaries that act to provide a seamless transition into the body feathers. The shoulder in your microraptor pieces in particular should not be visible, as they’d blend into the body with the feathers. Luxquine ( talk) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I love the new M. zhaoianus restoration! The iridescence is very well done. But I'm pretty sure it should have longer primaries than secondaries, like your M. gui. See this fossil: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-representative-Microraptor-zhaoianus-fossil-showing-body-wing-hind-limb-and-tail_fig2_256102089 Miracusaurs ( talk) 08:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, sorry it’s been so long! Velociraptor and Microraptor have been updated with better claw anatomy and longer wing feathers respectively. Entelognathus ( talk) 07:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
An updated Majungasaurus size reference using a skeletal by Franoys.
Primeval Artist ( talk) 20:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
I Just saw the chart above, this was not intentional. But regardless, a scale chart of Majungasaurus' largest specimen, based on Franoys' skeletal. Eotyrannu5-Returns ( talk) 00:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
A happy New Year to all of Wiki's paleoartists! Here is a size diagram of one of last year's most iconic dinosaurs: Tlatolophus. Scaling using the paper's skeletal diagram results in a length of just over the estimated 8 metres (26 ft). Comments? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 00:23, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
An awesome piece by TinyLongwing ( talk · contribs), however there are a few inaccuracies I would like to bring up to hopefully correct. While the fossil of Lectavis only shows a single bone in the leg, other Enantiornithes with toothed muzzles are shown to have the nostril farther towards the tip of the muzzle rather than closer to the head as was illustrated here. I'm also curious about the the rectrices illustrated in this piece; they look either like a fan of rectrices which Enantiornithes as a whole normally do not have, or even unusually short RDFs not seen in any of our current fossils displaying soft tissue preservation. Other than that it looks fantastic and I hope to see more work from TinyLongwing on Wikipedia! Luxquine ( talk) 07:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia already have a nice restoration it (together with some ceratopsids) I recently decided to update my drawing of Panoplosaurus. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 18:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you IJReid. I will consider your suggestions when I get time to fix it. Conty~enwiki 05:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I would like to nominate this photo for deletion. Longchengornis only has one fossil specimen, the holotype IVPP V10530, which this image incorrectly asserts itself as. Images available in the literature for the actual fossil look nothing like this photo. Luxquine ( talk) 08:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Unreviewed images. As usual, the hands look bad but the second image was already cropped. The first one seems unusable. Kiwi Rex ( talk) 17:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I made a few quick drawings of some fragmentary Enantiornithes (as they don't really warrant any more effort than that). All are drawn with similar patterns in reference to the fact that they used to be considered in the same family (Alexornithidae). Let me know what needs changing. Luxquine ( talk) 01:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Its nothing major, but I just realized that in File:Coelophysis rhodesiensis.JPG, the ear is in the wrong spot. (it's forwards in the inferior temporal fenestra instead of behind the quadratojugal). Its a cool illustration though, so what do you guys think should be done? Maybe have @ MonsieurX: fix it, since they've edited the image convincingly before. Hiroizmeh ( talk) 23:08, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I finished this illustration of Eoalulavis a while ago and thought it is time to get it checked. I often find fossil bird restorations more difficult (given how much the plumage can vary in "thickness" and therefore also the body outline) and have been thinking that it wculd be a good idea to start restoring them together with their fossils. What to improve? Conty~enwiki 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I will think about the colour of the fossil. Anyone having issues with the life restoration? Conty~enwiki 07:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Lythronaxargestes and Luxquine. Before editing, I would like to explain some of the details you point out, to see if you will still have issues with them: the fossil drawing in my illustration is carefully drawn by hand from the fossil photo in the original paper (I have tried to imitate some of the light/dark parts and "outline" in the photo as well: perhaps I should just make the skeleton in my drawing grey instead of beige?). Regarding the life restoration (which is partly based on kingfishers and fippers, see image description), I can remove the tail feathers if you wish. Regarding the head, I think your feeling that the eyes are place far back on the head is because I imagined the skull to have been a bit elongated preorbitally (like this Sulcavis skull restoration), as that would be beneficial to a bird feeding like modern kingfishers and dippers. If you think the eyes are too small, compare it to a kingfisher. I am aware that Enantiornithes had nostrils, but would they have been visible? If we look at modern birds, their nostrils are usually surrounded by bare skin) or (as I tried to create with my Eoalulavis), covered in feathers. The wings in my life restoration does not stop around the hip, but are meant to stop at the base of the tail. Conty~enwiki 13:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you everyone! I will start to edit my drawing. I am aware that arguments made by David Peters are problematic (perhaps I should have told you that from the start…), but his skull drawing happened to resemble what I imagined for my Eoalulavis. And yes, the fossil hit content of crustaceans were also part of my inspiration. Conty~enwiki 08:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I decided to follow the advice of FunkMonk and create a version without the holotype fossil (if FunkMonk think an actual photo of the fossil would be better than a fossil drawing, we first have to find one that we are allowed to publish on Wikimedia...), and tried to create a more Charadriiform-like appearance. I have edited the plumage appearance and colour, the eyes (size, colour), shape of the snout (the same length as before, but much thinner. The feathers are now covering the whole antorbital fenestra. If you think it would look better with more extensive covering of the snout, please tell me), length of the legs (made longer) and the tail feathers (removed). If you want to compare to yourself, look HERE. What do you think? Conty~enwiki 06:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Luxquine! I will consider shortening of the snout. Conty~enwiki 20:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
This image was added to the Carnotaurus page in November 2021, surrepetitiously replacing the old restoration by User:Fred Wierum. While I have no objections about the anatomy (it's perfect and realistic), I am concerned about how the artist's socials are clearly displayed on the bottom right corner. It makes it feel that it was added in the spirit of self-promotion. What do we do about this? Miracusaurs ( talk) 07:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
I dug up an old titanosaur illustration [64] I had done for another project and tried to improve the anatomy (sauropod anatomy is not my strongest point, and it's still very much a WIP) so it could be used here. But it was drawn pretty generically, so it could be a number of genera that we don't have illustrations of yet. Any suggestions/requests for what it could be? Looking around what needs illustrations, perhaps it could be Atsinganosaurus, Lirainosaurus, Mendozasaurus, or similar. FunkMonk ( talk) 02:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I added this life restoration of Linhevenator tani to the Linhevenator page. FunkMonk pointed out that this should image should have been reviewed. I am not sure it this should be taken down from the Linhevneator page until the review is finished, but FunkMonk did not take it down. I'm also not sure how long review should take, but I don't really care (even if the page will have to go without a restoration for a while); I just want to follow Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks FunkMonk for pointing this and that fossils are preferred in the taxobox (which makes a lot of sense thinking about it).
I edited the primary feather angles so they anchor more proximally along the second finger because the angles of some of them looked as if they were attached more distally than the claw. I am not sure if this is what Lythronaxargestes meant, but this was definitely something that needed improvement. I also made the longer hindlimb feathers look more pennaceous. Right now the image is not updating to the new version in some places. I am not sure why, but if you can not see the new version you can see it under the current version in the file history at the [ Wikimedia Commons file] until I find out what is going on. I'm not sure if this is the result of some sort of lag or if it is something on my part. BipedalSarcopterygian201.3 ( talk) 21:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This skeletal, labeled as Camarasaurus, is in fact of Brontomerus. It's modified from a Camarasaurus skeletal, but if you compare it to Hartman's Camarasaurus skeletal [66], you'll note that the shapes of the scapula and ilium have been modified to match Brontomerus. Either it needs to have its name changed or it should be modified to have a Camarasaurus-shaped ilium and scapula. Ornithopsis ( talk) 18:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's a size diagram of Isisaurus using Scott Hartman's new skeletal diagram as a reference for proportions and size. Isisaurus is quite a bizarre animal! Apparently, it has been notoriously difficult to scale and reconstruct because of inconsistencies between measurements and scale bars. Hartman's diagram results in a length of ~12m, but Greg Paul's estimate in the Princeton Field Guide is significantly higher (18m). The current life restoration is marked as inaccurate, so the page could benefit from a more up-to-date depiction. Comments? - SlvrHwk ( talk) 04:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Just checking if this is accurate or not, I decided to give it more "basal" traits (deeper skull and shorter neural spines) based on the phylogenetic analysis. Sauriazoicillus ( talk) 09:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The skeletal currently on the Gannansaurus page is accurate (as far as I know) but very crudely drawn. I have made a neater skeletal based on the figures in the paper that described the genus. Outline is based on related Euhelopus by Gunnar Bivens (CC-BY). Feedback/corrections appreciated.
Flipped the backwards caudal vertebra and fixed scaling. Remind me not to make skeletals until I've had at least 4 cups of coffee. P2N2222A ( talk) 00:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Cropped and rearranged, per your suggestion. I put my name and handle on skeletals because I have had my work reposted/reused without credit before, but I removed per your request. I also flipped to make a left-facing version, which I uploaded as a separate file. P2N2222A ( talk) 01:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
This life restoration was added to the article without review, replacing another restoration that was drawn in MS Paint. I would say that the head looks rather strange. HFoxii ( talk) 14:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Vectiraptor size comparison with human. Anything I can change about the composition? 86.12.246.246 ( talk) 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I have updated the Eosinopteryx restoration I made in 2013, updating some proportions (in particular, head and forelimbs) and the position of the wings. The paper describing the genus and containing images of the fossil is referenced in the file's description page. Also, since this dinosaur is now considered an anchiornithid I tried to add a couple of extra details, such as a more irregular wing feather distribution and a more fluffy plumage (though I'm not sure I've properly achieved that). -- El fosilmaníaco ( talk) 19:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)