Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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

Wudingloong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Wudingloong

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The arms and neck seem slightly too small in proportion to the head.In your reconstruction the humerus seems equal to or smaller than the length of the skull but in the figures present in the paper it is significantly larger. Driptosaurus (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Lengthened humerus, slightly adjusted head and neck proportions. TotalDino (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Proportions match the skeletal material better now. Only thing I would say is that the claw on the left arm's first digit looks much smaller than the one on the right arm's first digit but that's a nitpick. I think it's usable. Driptosaurus (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Various dinosaurs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 
  Prenocephale
• 
  Euoplocephalus
• 
  Abrosaurus
• 
  Anzu

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

• Euoplocephalus is a pretty tricky taxon, as it was recently exploded into variuous genera. What is this based on? The purple downy on the body of Anzu are probably impossible, since apparently the pigments for this colour (and green and blue) can only exist on more complex feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

  So are the blues possible in the pennaceous feathers? What coloration would you say are possible for the body covering? TotalDino (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Anything you can see in modern birds would be possible, and Microraptor shows that blue pennaceous feathers was a thing for non-bird theropods, but I believe downy feathers were more limited to drab-colours, but could be for example red and yellow too. But perhaps someone more knowledgable about this could chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hartman's skeletal diagram was my main reference for Euoplocephalus. TotalDino (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Looks like it's pre-split and incorporates element which are now considered Scolosaurus. But the situation is so complicated that I'm not sure how to deal with it, but beware that it's probably chimaeric as is. FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The diagram is dated 2018, so it's most likely made after the elements of Scolosaurus, Dyoplosaurus, Anodontosaurus, Oohkotokia, and Platypelta were removed. 2001:4453:56A:4B00:74C9:3631:1352:772E (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The skull appears to be this, though, which has been assigned to Scolosaurus, but was often used in Euoplocephalus restorations:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The coloration on the Abrosaurus seems quite implausible for two reasons:

Large animals tend to be duller in color compared to small ones because of the energy involved in producing massive amounts of pigment.

The yellow, bright red, and blue colors are all carotenoid derived, and probably wouldn't be feasible for Abrosaurus to intake enough carotenoids to make its skin so vibrant as a mostly browsing animal. Driptosaurus (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

An abstract from SVP 2023 does report possible Diplodocus melanosomes with yellow or ginger color, so it’s possible that sauropods could have those shades. 2001:4453:56A:4B00:205F:7A6D:C262:E4C2 (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

understood, but my point still stands on the purple and blue. Driptosaurus (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Toned down Abrosaurus coloration. TotalDino (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

There is tons of paleoart of large reptiles with colorations of all kinds. This "color realism" is not a standard that we have ever applied to paleoart, and I don't see a reason to start applying it here. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Alright. I was just going off of what the guidelines say. Driptosaurus (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

The jugals of Prenocephale were not forming "flanges" like in ceratopsians, so the distinction between then and the surrounding facial tissue should be removed. The various nodes (snout, jugal, squamosal) would also be keratinized, which would make their appearance different from the surrounding skin, and also increase their prominence. The keratin points also stand for Euoplocephalus, which should also have the jugal horn, and lowermost osteoderms on the first and second cervical ring projecting lateroventrally rather than straight ventrally. Comments about the colouration above are correct and require change; no purple or blues, but reds and more neutral colours. The eye of Anzu appears too large. Minor revisions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:36, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Anzu colors made more red and neutral, eye reduced. TotalDino (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Prenocephale jugal "flanges" merged with rest of head, keratin extended to cover surrounding areas. TotalDino (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suskityrannus skull

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Reconstruction of the skull of Suskityrannus hazelae, known material highlighted in white.

Reconstruction of the skull of Suskityrannus, restored using Khankhuuluu, Gorgosaurus, Alioramus, and Dilong. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Pass I see no issues. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:20, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Minor Revisions The jugal is not that complete in the holotype specimen. the anterior portion of the surangular is also not preserved in the holotype or paratype specimens. Looking at scans of the material, and asking around, the description paper's interpretation is correct in terms of what we have preserved. Based on 3d scans of the holotype, we also have a complete premaxilla, which you restored as partially missing (even though the preservation in the area is subpar). Montanoceratops (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

After taking a second look I agree with all of these points, although I'm still unsure if the premaxilla is preserved in its original shape. When I get a chance I'll apply these modifications. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Monolophosaurus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions Like I've replied with the artist's Allosaurus fragilis, the ischium once again, appears to be absent. To my eye, the crest shape is odd (although it may just represent an individual with a piece of its crest missing) and the claws should be longer. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:324F:4DE8:1817:9469 (talk) 12:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• I's not so useful for our purposes to show the subject obscured by darkness. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

  @FunkMonk Are you sure that the ischium is obscured by darkness? Because as for what I see, it is completely omitted.

  Whatever the case, my thoughts on the claws remain unchanged. They should be somewhat longer. I sincerely withdraw my thoughts on the crest, as we don't have strict cranial evidence limelighting its shape. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:4048:3D33:3C43:F370 (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't a response to your observations, but an issue about the image in general. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea. I thought you were referring to the animal's proportions, rather than the image itself. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:BDB:F456:4213:D4A2 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Two more revisions;the nostril is shaped like a comma, and the legs look extremely bizarre to my eye. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:260E:CC92:2912:DACF (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Istiorachis macarthurae

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision: The low bump at the base of the tail may need to be removed, as it’s not in the official skeletal nor (afaik) in any other sailed ornithopod (e.g. Ouranosaurus, Hypacrosaurus, Morelladon). But this is optional — it’s good to use either way. Miracusaurs (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

This element is not preserved in Istiorachis, however a similar shape can be seen in Comptonatus, another high-backed early Cretaceous English ornithopod. Ddinodan (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any issues. Aventadoros (talk) 17:59, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Istiorachis (TD)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Istiorachis

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Needs revisions The sail must be merged with the skin. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:62C6:EF1D:3C79:AABF (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Changed coloration on sail to merge into skin of back. TotalDino (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Nice. I give this a pass-looks good now. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:86D6:1E88:329E:3EE4 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you might want to consider editing the description. It's the same as your Abrosaurus. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1FA:93A:2850:1321 (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Whoops! Must have copy/pasted it from the wrong place. Thanks! TotalDino (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suskityrannus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A life reconstruction of Suskityrannus hazelae

While I love Tom Parker's recon currently used on the page, its unfortunately not suited for phylogenetic trees due to the woman in the background. So I figured I'd upload my own, let me know if there are any problems! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issues, pass for me. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spicomellus afer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Can't speak to the accuracy, but artistically and stylistically it is amazing. One of your best pieces. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Concur with @Hemiauchenia. This reconstruction is a pass, I don't see any issues, major or minor, it exquisitely depicts the outlandish anatomy. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:E6CB:FE9:F772:3DE2 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Very nice. I wonder if the lateral plates shown here are a bit more recurved than would be suggested by the material (fig. S11)? Keratin, I guess? I would also expect, given the fused 'handle' caudal verts with ossified tendons, that the distal tail would be nearly inflexible. Even the dynamically-posed press reconstruction restricts tail curvature to the anterior region. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:06, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The lateral plates are reconstructed with significant keratin, as well as the rest of the osteoderms. For the tail, it could reasonably be less flexible, however the anatomy (and publication) impress that it did not have an ankylosaur-like club. Hence, the handle vertebra (which are unseen in any figure for some reason) don't necessarily need to be wholly rigid. I reconstructed the tip of the tail here with a similar flexibility to what I would imagine in most stegosaurs; if you look past the osteoderms at the actual shape of the tail, the curve is very minimal. Ddinodan (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Hm, I reached the opposite conclusion from the paper's discussion, since long, robust prezygs and fused vertebrae w/ ossified tendons are more similar to stiff-tailed and club-bearing taxa (Zuul and Dyoplosaurus listed as examples in the paper) than what [stego-/parankylo-]saurs have. The handle vertebrae (two of them, fused) are shown in fig. 1a. It's not much to look at since they were difficult to access to prep, but that is the interpretation given. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Theres very little to go off here to determine with any conclusivity how stiff the tail would have been. The press art shows a variety of poses including some with very similar bending to as illustrated here, and we only have two vertebrae to reference. They are assumed to be somewhat homologous with the caudals of ankylosaurines but differences are also listed with the paper explicitly stating a stiff tail handle is found in ankylosaurines (i.e. more derived), and with such a small sample its hard to say whether the entire distal tail (if they are even distal caudals, without the dorsal surfaces its hard to tell if there is a neural spine etc) or only part (like the thagomizer in stegosaurs which can be "fused") was more rigid. Until otherwise contradicted, I see no issue with this piece and I would give it a pass with the caveat that its mostly hypothetical. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Huashanosaurus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Huashanosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 00:04, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Revisions: this is a good instance of why skeletal reconstructions should not always be strictly followed; fragmentary nature aside, there's no reason to reconstruct Huashanosaurus with such a 'basal' bodyplan (posture, multiple manual unguals...). -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Posture adjusted and manual unguals removed. TotalDino (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Better, happy to pass now. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Huashanosaurus qini

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Given its anatomy and phylogenetic position I wouldn't be surprised if it had more mamenchisaur-like proportions (M. Mortimer also commented on this extensively on the DMG). But given the specimens are extremely fragmentary and hardly anything can be said about them I don't think this warrants revisions. Pass for me. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:20, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The publication skeletal is a Shunosaurus from ~2002 - I decided to give the authors the benefit of the doubt and assume at least the genus chosen was purposeful, so the anatomy here is just based on a more modern Shunosaurus. Ddinodan (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Life reconstruction of Ostafrikasaurus crassiserratus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

life reconstruction of Ostafrikasaurus crassiserratus as a primitive spinosaurid

Hypothetical life reconstrucion of Ostafrikasaurus crassiserratus as a primitive spinosaurid. Please review for accuracy. Lunes Krätschmer (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Only revision I would suggest is lifting up the first digit on the inside of the left foot, as far as I can tell even more derived spinosaurids (like suchomimus) probably held it off the ground due to how small it was, as it was teeny tiny compared to spinosaurus. Then again, the available spinosaurid foot material is scant so it's not a huge issue in my eyes. The one thing I'm curious about is the scaleless jaw adductor muscle. I don't know a ton about theropod jaws so I'm not sure what the likelihood of that sort of structure would be, or if it should be covered with scaly skin. Driptosaurus (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

How are we supposed to review something for accuracy if it's only known from teeth? Almost everything is hypothetical and can't really be evaluated for accuracy per se, other than following basic dinosaur anatomy. No offense to the artist who obviously put a considerable amount of work into drawing the art, which is highly detailed and well drawn, but it's questionable whether nearly entirely hypothetical restorations like this have much educational value for use on Wikipedia in the first place. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it matters if something is a tooth taxon, as long as there are published precedents for how to restore them. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't the eyes be lower down, and being represented as a spinosaurid, its chances of having lips are slim to null. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8DA0:3B52:2843:3133 (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

And where are the published precendents for restoring Ostafrikasaurus? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

In this case, it would include phylogenetic hypotheses. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Even if they don't exist, those are still common norms of spinosaurid anatomy. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:BCB3:6C6E:E379:5C0F (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Update:I'll admit, the majority of Ostafrikasaurus reconstructions depict it with lips, so the oral anatomy needs no fixes. However, the sockets should be situated lower to the position they're depicted here. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:BCB3:6C6E:E379:5C0F (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. My question to you would be why you think the sockets should be situated lower. Do you Have any reliable sources to why that should be the case? I think the sockets in my depiction are in the right position, as the sockets in valid reconstructions of other spinosaurid skulls are in similar position. Furthermore, since there is no fossil material of that part of the skull, we can only make an educated guess to how the skull might has looked. Lunes Krätschmer (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I do have one reliable source. In the other spinosaurid reconstruction of Ostafrikasaurus, the sockets appear to be situated slightly lower. You are correct about this being an educated guess, but most spinosaurid depictions showcase the eye sockets to be lower than what you have depicted. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:3CEE:A08C:500F:E891 (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Update:I regret criticizing the eye socket position. It is correct. I give this reconstruction a pass. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:9609:7285:D506:1227 (talk) 19:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lythronax

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 

Used in es Wiki. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• Don't think a very battered individual is the best way to show what the general animal looked like, and what's with the anime silhouette? FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  The watermark is also gigantic. It could either be shrunk or removed entirely. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:ACF1:C86B:E6CE:86A9 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

  Signature is obtrusive, as is the giant Comic Sans label. Likewise, a silhouette that isn't a normal human with no indication of its actual size isn't very useful. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

  I'd say this reconstruction is an instant fail. Binomial name is in a gigantic Comic Sans text, the watermark is too big (could even be removed entirely), the anime silhouette is unnecessary, and it is too battered (tooth embedded in dentary, missing one arm, et cetera). Naris is also visible. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:20FF:886D:74C3:23FF (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• Pinging the artist, @Paleo lazo yt: The dinosaur itself seems to be well-drawn but the diagram as a whole certainly needs revisions to be usable, per the above comments. Most of those changes are easy to make (removing distracting and unnecessary elements), though some redrawing is advised to remove the injuries to make it usable for Wikipedia. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I like the idea and I promise to redo the drawing in these days to make it more usable, thank you very much 181.224.191.30 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  You're welcome. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:20FF:886D:74C3:23FF (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Chupkaornis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 

Does this reconstruction need repair? かずたき (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it needs minor revisions. There are no teeth. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:ACF1:C86B:E6CE:86A9 (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I added teeth to the picture. かずたき (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a pass now. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D557:8BC8:8D82:6C2C (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh! There's no nostril. Just a minor revision. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D7D0:3EFC:A060:F462 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

I added nostrils. かずたき (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Whew, pass now. No more revisions necessary. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D7D0:3EFC:A060:F462 (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Seems this is based on Scott Hartman's Hesperornis, but itself is not Hesperornithid and more close to Baptornis. Either way more basal hesperorniths lacks materials to reconstruct, so probably needed to tag as speculative paleoart. I am not sure about other issues here. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if this image verges on unusable simply due to the technical style and lack of detail. While Wikipedia does not have a minimum requirement for detail, it would be preferable to get the linework and coloring cleaned up. It currently looks quite unfinished. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rocasaurus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Used in es Wiki. Aby comments?

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a pass - well drawn, and anatomy seems consistent with saltasaurids. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:21, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Keresdrakon and Berthasaura

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Life reconstruction of Keresdrakon after having successfully hunted a young Berthasaura. I figure this could be useful in the Keresdrakon page and possibly the Goio-Erê Formation page as well. Let me know if there are any issues!

Life reconstruction of Keresdrakon with a young Berthasaura in its beak.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions Why does the baby Berthasaura have teeth? The animal was most likely devoid of teeth for the entirety of its life. Keresdrakon is fine, I can't see any issues. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D557:8BC8:8D82:6C2C (talk) 19:01, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Pierossi et al. (2025) reports a new juvenile Berthasaura with teeth, confirming that it went through the same onteogenetic niche shift as Limusaurus. For this, I give the reconstruction a pass. https://doi.org/10.1111/pala.70014 Miracusaurs (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

To add on to what was said, a recent study found evidence that Berthasaura once had teeth, and since this individual is smaller than the known specimens I decided to include them here. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I watched this YouTube video. However, it was published when the animal was first described, so it is outdated. I did not know Berthasaura went through a similar life cycle to Limusaurus. Thank you for confirming. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D7D0:3EFC:A060:F462 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, when it was initially published it was thought to be toothless throughout its life because the specimen was toothless and younger than some toothed Limusaurus specimens. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Have you seen that video? Just curious. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D7D0:3EFC:A060:F462 (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No, I just read the paper. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. This reconstruction is a pass. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D7D0:3EFC:A060:F462 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

• Is it likely that the nostril would be entirely invisible? Can't think of modern animals like that. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, yeah, that’s a mistake on my end, I’ll fix that. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

  Or do you mean with the pterosaur”: nostril? In which case I’m not sure but I can add it if necessary, it just might take a bit. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The pterosaur, yeah. Seems like the nostrils are completely covered by fuzz. Most animals with nostrils seem to have them exposed (though some can close them off, of course). FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Good point, I didn’t catch that lol. I agree it would probably be more exposed so I’ll put a patch of exposed skin with the nostril in front of the fur Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, the pterosaur should indeed have a visible soft tissue nostril. Once that's fixed it should be a pass, but minor revisions for now. Skye McDavid (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Masiakasaurus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mark Knopfler singing Queso roñoso.

Hi there. Forgive my absence. In June, FunkMonk noticed the notable lack of Masiakasaurus life restorations. So I'm here to put under review an old restoration I made of it. In the coming days I will be reviewing and editing the cranial and dental anatomy in detail. I will also be fixing the muscles of the legs.

The coloration is inspired in the asian water monitor. Please, any comments, and reviews are welcomed. (Please listen to any Dire Straits song while reading or writing here). Levi bernardo (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

Certainly an improvement over the other life restoration currently in wide use on Wiki. I'm happy giving it a pass, though any fixes or updates as you mentioned won't hurt. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Well, the other Masiaka recon is slightly inaccurate (visible fenestrae) and the normal version /media/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f8/20220827213749%21Masiakasaurus_BW.jpg has also been uploaded too many times (is it possible to be re-added back to Nobu Tamura's Cretaceous page?). Concurring with @SlvrHwk, pass, and any edits you plan on doing are completely fine 🙂. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:20FF:886D:74C3:23FF (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Shoot I forgot to bold the word "pass", pass, though like said, the edits you yourself suggested aren't issues at all. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:20FF:886D:74C3:23FF (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The main thing I would suggest is smoothing out the belly. Currently there is a sharp angle right before the leg where the belly curves up, which would probably not be present in life. Overall it's a great reconstruction! Love this little guy and I'm happy someone did it justice. Driptosaurus (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spicomellus skeletal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 
  Spicomellus 1
• 
  Spicomellus 2
• 
  Spicomellus 3

Following the recent description of a partial skeleton of the previously enigmatic ankylosaur Spicomellus, here is a reconstructed skeleton incorporating the new material with gaps filled in with other (most early-diverging) ankylosaurs. I uploaded three alternate versions: The first is the 'standard' style with known material in white/yellow and unknown in grey. The second is fully white (does not indicate known material). The third separates the 'internal' and 'external' skeleton and only shows known material. As always, thoughts and comments are appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

My one and only question is why the entire skull is illustrated on the rigorous skeletal even though only one bone (quadrate) is preserved? Beyond that I think they look great, and the separate files allows for using templates to display any combination at once in different arrangements. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:02, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

If you're referring to the right-most skeletal, every bone that is known from partial remains is shown in full, but with the known material highlighted. The cranium is considered a "single bone" for these purposes it seems. I think its fine. It's clear from the diagram that these elements are reconstructed. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

In all honesty, I'm not that confident in illustrating an isolated ankylosaur quadrate in lateral view (it's only figured in anterior/posterior). Plus the skull elements tend to be co-ossified in ankylosaurs (though maybe not in Spico...). And on top of that, while showing just the quadrate might make sense to those familiar with dinosaur anatomy, it loses a lot of contextual meaning for the less familiar when shown isolated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Albalophosaurus, Atlasaurus, Mantellisaurus (TD)

• 
  Albalophosaurus
• 
  Atlasaurus
• 
  Mantellisaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

• Perhaps a general issue, but the individual scales on them seem very proportionally large compared to how small they seem to be on known skin-impressions? Not my expertise, but I believe someone said once that individual scales would barely even be visible in a sauropod from that distance. So perhaps an issue with the size of the textures generally used for scales here. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision: It seems to me that Albalophosaurus has been depicted as a ceratopsian. If so, it has a common error in reconstructions of these dinosaurs: the lack of a ridge connecting the jugal to the squamosal. Aventadoros (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

What if I'm going for basal marginocephalian? TotalDino (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

That's a good question. The nomenclatural definition of the Marginocephalia clade clearly indicates that only ceratopsians and pachycephalosaurs belong to this group, which currently excludes the existence of basal forms, although they must have existed. Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to imagine what characteristics such a form should have. There are several phylogenetic analyses supporting the ceratopsian interpretation of Albalophosaurus, so I recommend adapting to it and making it a basal ceratopsian. Aventadoros (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Medusaceratops skeletal restoration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would adore critique on my restoration of Medusaceratops. I used the original description of Albertaceratops, Medusaceratops, the description of the new material, and Lokiceratops' paper for the bulk of the restoration, referencing Wendiceratops, and when applicable the mount. Olof Moleman and Andrew Farke helped a lot with certain specific details and reviewing the work. The Scalebar is 1m and scaled to the holotype. Montanoceratops (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any issues and it's good for use. By the way, are you also planning to add known postcranial elements to this reconstruction? Aventadoros (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of the postcranial elements are figured within the literature. I have photos of some of the postcranial bonebed elements, but there has been no publication in my knowledge that covers Medusaceratops' postcranial skeleton. I could ask Hartman if he has photos, but I would rather only figure the skull until a sufficient and complete description of the bonebed postcrania is done. User:Montanoceratops (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass for the diagram, it's clearly well-researched. I will add that we generally discourage adding 'extra' information to images, especially if it's already on the page (taxonomic authority, specimen number, what you used to fill in the gaps, etc.). This is generally better in the file description. -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newtonsaurus (TD)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Newtonsaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions: It should have a vestigial fourth finger. 2001:4453:56A:4B00:C0F:5E8D:88E8:FDB7 (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Added. TotalDino (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Good. I give this a pass. 2001:4453:56A:4B00:1D9C:531D:6082:B21B (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Judith River Deinocheirid Skull

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Skull reconstruction of the possible deinocheirid from the Judith River Formation published a couple days ago.

Reconstruction of the skull of OUSM-FV-002, a possible deinocheirid from the Judith River Formation, known material highlighted in white.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass I can't see any issues. Also, how large was this thing? Maybe around Garudimimus-sized? 2600:4040:5100:FC00:20FF:886D:74C3:23FF (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass based on the material there isn't any issues with the restoration. Its inherently speculative in nature, but it has to be with how fragmentary the remains are and how little there is to go off of in terms of placement. Montanoceratops (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Newtonsaurus cambrensis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

No issues. Instant pass. 2001:4453:56A:4B00:1D9C:531D:6082:B21B (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shri rapax 2

• 
• 

Used in itWiki. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

• What do we think about very narrow corners of the mouth in theropods, as shown here? If ornithischians are now commonly restored with barely any cheek-like tissues, I'm not sure why theropods should be, who would have even less need for it. Not that I personally think it's impossible, we should probably just follow what is most common. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

  It seems to follow the shape of the exoparia to me, which would make sense following the latest literature. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about how far back the corner reaches; here it stops in front of the eye, while the actual jaw hinge is well behind the eye socket. Even if we take the exoparia into account, it seems it would at least reach below the eyeball:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Cariocecus (TD)

Cariocecus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment - the characteristic 'eagle-eyed' appearance from the palpebral would almost certainly be more prominently visible. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, this needs revisions

The keratin sheath should be larger. Proof - https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjcKxsyYCFJg0Jtaxt33tQfBrTgubwohaKQ6XrnUzOq7Vig1ppp52alaEApqewJ0Czwnh7BEGEnkhyphenhyphenDOUhivEjSEfRVoXS-dEy-WxcR_Br0UPP5DxisSGOPBZWln_EqUf99N4978kz5ybSP4Y1wkhjNrx09nHsEx_HojQ8YPlEgxg06pNsIlVpRIaUlW4dI/s1128/Cariocecus_bocagei-novataxa_2025-Bertozzo_Camilo_.jpg 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1FA:93A:2850:1321 (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

"Eagle eye" brow more prominent, Keratin sheath larger. TotalDino (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Cariocecus bocagei

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass for me - captures the unique orbital region believably and I like the neural spine height/arrangement compared to Brighstoneus and Comptonatus. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass. It represents the animal very well IMO, and I don't see any issues with it. Montanoceratops (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Tyrannosauridae

• 
  Tyrannosaurid species known from good fossil record (LTR Tyrannosaurus rex, Tarbosaurus bataar, Daspletosaurus Torosus, Albertosaurus sacrophagus, Gorgosaurus libratus)

Added to article by @Zeck.ihno: without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello.

I am not very acquainted with the appropriate procedure. Can I review it now, respectively how? Zeck.ihno (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, what happens is others review your art and decide whether it's fine or needs revisions.

Also, it appears your reconstruction warrants major revisions, all five have shrinkwrapped skulls and overly saggy skin. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1FA:93A:2850:1321 (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Gorgosaurus also appears to have pronated hands. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1FA:93A:2850:1321 (talk) 00:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Heya

Thank you for your answer!

But do I have an application on Wiki where I can actively apply for review or does it just happen?

As for your very precious remarks:

The skulls are indeed somewhat shrink-wrapped, Yes. Purposely so actually. This way the skull morphology, by which you can tell species easier apart, would be more paramount. At least that was my idea.

The saggy skin, or more precisely the skin folds are something we can see in large terrestrial animals like cows and elephants. But, of course, the structure of the skin, in which the animal was wrapped, can only be theorised evidence-basedly to a limited degree. Apart from the fact that all known fossil skin integument impressions from large tyrannosaurids don't seem to show traces of plumage and feature very very tiny scales, which would the animal's skin appear very smooth from far (something I have applied apart from the heads where I chose for bigger ceratin formations for display and protection of head and mouth). However, skin folds and the aforementioned skin structure wouldn't necessarily exclude one another.

Kind regards 81.62.151.86 (talk) 10:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Heya

Thanks so much for your reply!

But I do disagree. The palms are facing each other, that is the arms are about 0-ish° between supination and pronation. They are just tilted a wea bit backwards to showcase the headwind in rapid cursorial movement.

Kind regards 81.62.151.86 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Gastralia should essentially be a direct line from the pectoral girdle to the pubic boot. The trend of gastralia arcing posteroventrally (popularized by GS Paul) is contradicted by every skeleton ever found with articulated gastralia and leaves insufficient space for internal organs. Skye McDavid (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's very valid criticism. Thank you a lot! 81.62.151.86 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Zavacephale (size)

• 
  Size

Size chart for the new pachycephalosaur, comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Instant pass. Looks good. (Finally, a marginocephalian this year, even if it isn't a ceratopsid) 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1FA:93A:2850:1321 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Instant pass. It looks great and it follows the material and size of the animal really well. Montanoceratops (talk) 01:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Zavacephale (TD)

Zavacephale

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Immediate pass I can't spot any major issues. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1FA:93A:2850:1321 (talk) 23:57, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions: based on a number of images of the skull, it seems like the skull in the skeletal may have been based on an image with a large amount of lens distortion. I'd recommend looking at these other images and adjusting where needed. SeismicShrimp (talk) 01:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This point has been countered below, however I have other minor revisions to suggest: there should not be nodes below the lateral postorbital-squamosal node row, but there should be nodes going down the postorbital where you have a ridge. The tail also likely needs to be deeper given the fossilised tendon baskets. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Keratin nodes adjusted accordingly, tail made deeper. TotalDino (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Zavacephale rinpoche

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:34, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions: based on a number of images of the skull, it seems like the skull in the skeletal may have been based on an image with a large amount of lens distortion. I'd recommend looking at these other images and adjusting where needed. SeismicShrimp (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The skeletal, per GetAwayTrike, was made using surface scans and casts (https://imgur.com/a/vsbgu4V) of the material. I'm more inclined to believe varying focal lengths in other photos are distorting the skull. Ddinodan (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Can concur with @Ddinodan, the skull is fine. I will say though, the scutes on the back are bizarre, pachycephalosaurs didn't look like that. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:BFD0:1C03:BE66:DB64 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Though I'm more of a fish person, I know a number of dinosaurs had some sort of large scales along the back (some sauropods and hadrosaurs) and I personally see zero issues in including them on a reconstruction. SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I was just saying it's strange seeing those on a pachycephalosaur. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:BFD0:1C03:BE66:DB64 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass: Reconstruction looks correct, but on what basis did you base these scales on the back for Zavacephale, which were present in hadrosaurs? I see that they are absent in the Brontotholus reconstruction, yet here they are visible. Aventadoros (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

These are basic midline scales added as reasonable speculation. We have no idea of what pachycephalosaur integument was like, and it would be unreasonable to assume it was less variable than other groups such as hadrosaurs or other marginocephalians. Hence, because Zavacephale and Brontotholus are not the same taxon, they can be reconstructed with differing scalation. Ddinodan (talk) 05:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Europasaurus

• 
  Europasaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Some size charts

• 
  Size of OUSM-FV-002, larger square equals one meter.
• 
  Size of Newtonsaurus cambrensis, larger square equals one meter.
• 
  Size of Camarillasaurus cirugedae, larger square equals one meter.

Size charts of the Judith River Deinocheirid, Newtonsaurus, and Camarillasaurus. I might make some of them into rigorous skeletals. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

• Pass for Newtonsaurus. Given how little is known of the animal, the reconstruction is plausible for a large basal neotheropod and is accurately scaled according to estimates given in published literature. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Slight updates to Camarillasaurus Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Um, it seems like the Camarillasaurus is too large. It was probably around 13 feet long. Minor revision. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:C18F:5AB9:3EA3:642F (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Why would it be so small? Please refer to the skeletal reconstruction below. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

For some reason, early estimates of the size of Camarillasaurus were quite small, possibly due to lack of material, but as SlvrHwk said, scaling the material gets this size. As an example, the femur alone is 85 cm long, which would preclude such a short length. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know. Apologies for misunderstanding.

So how long would the animal be then? About Irritator-sized? 2600:4040:5100:FC00:C18F:5AB9:3EA3:642F (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Size comparison is a pass BTW. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:C18F:5AB9:3EA3:642F (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

From what I understand it would probably be similar to Ichthyovenator in size. And don't worry about the misunderstanding, this is why I wanted to upload this in the first place. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

OK. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:C18F:5AB9:3EA3:642F (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Camarillasaurus skeletal

Skeletal of Camarillasaurus based on the new paper, filled in using Spinosaurus, Irritator, Ichthyovenator, and Baryonyx.

• 
  Skeletal reconstruction of Camarillasaurus cirugedae, based on the holotype MPG-KPC1-46 (in white), and referred material of the same specimen MPZ 2022/182 (in blue).

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Nice work, though I have several revisions to request:

• I noticed that you note in the file description "material drawn...without taking into account...deformation"). A skeletal should ideally be a reconstruction, accounting for deformation. This shouldn't be too difficult in this case, as the most prominently impacted elements are the femur and maybe the tibia. Otherwise you get a false impression of the likely appearance.
• The jugal-quadratojugal articulation looks off (I would leave off the whole cranium in the first place since it's quite speculative, but up to you).
• Here, MPG-KPC 9 and MPG-KPC 2 are shown in the mid-dorsal region, but Rauhut et al. described the centrum+neural arch as a posterior element and the spine as from the "posterior dorsal or sacral" region. Furthermore, showing these as the same element begins to imply a specific association between the two when that's not necessarily the case.
• The dorsal rib might articulate too high on the torso (you should draw in the transverse process for the dorsal vert to help here). Transverse processes should also be shown on the caudals up until MPG-KPC 11, which is the last one to have them.
• As I expressed on the Discord server, I'm still skeptical about placing the distal caudals that close to the tail tip - it doesn't leave much space for the natural termination of the tail (compare to other reconstructions where the distalmost caudal verts are nearly 'featureless'). It might be less straightforward then just placing them where the centrum lengths match up best with the Spinosaurus caudal series.
• The 'hump' on the back looks rather unnatural, and it doesn't line up well with the dorsal neural spine. Flattening this out will help.
• My last major observation is that the gastrocnemius muscle isn't properly illustrated (needs to originate at the posterior distal femur).

Visually separating original vs. new material is ok, though I would also make sure to note (in the file description) which bones are mirrored from the right side. That's all I have right now, SuspiciousHadrosaur might have further comments. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I'm working on updating it but figured I'd address all the points, including some I don't necessarily agree with.

• I went back and forth about retrodeforming elements, and I'm still unsure. On the one hand it's definitely ideal, but on the other I'm not super confident in my abilities to do so, and it seemed better to accurately represent distorted material than to inaccurately represent undistorted material.
• I prefer having the cranium there cause I feel it adds context for the preserved elements that may confuse non-experts, but I can definitely revisit that contact.
• I thought I had them in roughly the place shown in the paper skeletal but I think you're right and I should push em back a bit. I also made the vert and the spine the same element just to avoid having to draw a second vert lol, but you're probably right there too, I'll compare to other spinosaurs to try and determine an appropriate placement.
• The position of the rib is based on Baryonyx, but I can shift it down slightly. The transverse processes are something I'd like to include but it's tough to find good references and I may have to exclude them if I can't confidently reconstruct them
• I actually already addressed this and pushed them back lol, they now line up more or less exactly with the relevant elements in Spinosaurus. While the distalmost caudals are featureless in most theropods, Spino seems to be unique in that the featureless caudals at the very least start very far back, or are even completely nonexistent. That said, I have tried to imply a more gradual taper than Spino here.
• I definitely agree here, and am currently playing around with various shapes.
• This is something I completely missed but will also address.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to add to the neural spine, comparing it to Ichthyovenator and postcrania from Brazil it seems to best match sacral neural spines, which leaves me the dilemma of whether or not I should try and include sacral vertebrae even though there aren't any measurements for them, and I'd have to rely on cross-scaling and scalebars. Edit: it seems I was mistaken, it fits perfectly well as a dorsal. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions have been incorporated! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with most of what SlvrHwk said.

I'll add that the suture between the maxilla and jugal is missing. The one rib is more complete in the old paper and seems to indicate a fairly slender torso similar to FSAC KK 11888. Making the dorsal spines this long feels a bit speculative. But who knows. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I totally missed that suture there! As for the rib, I actually did keep in mind the part shown in the old paper, and the torso is pretty slender already, so I may leave those as is. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I added the suture, and also took the opportunity to add foramina to the jaw to match the maxilla and premaxilla, and tweaked the end of the rib to better match the vertebrae. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Torosaurus, Dryptosaurus

• 
  Torosaurus
• 
  Dryptosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

The arms on the Dryptosaurus seem a little bit skinny. The humerus would likely have quite a bit more muscle attached to it. Additionally, the claws would probably be a bit longer since they are sheathed in keratin. Driptosaurus (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Dryptosaurus arm thickened, claws lengthened. TotalDino (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks good.Pass Driptosaurus (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

?Minor revision: I am not sure if the eye is in the correct position (shouldn't it be slightly higher and closer to the horn?). I am basing my opinion on this skeletal reconstruction. [3] 2A00:F44:F1:A4FE:6C24:948C:33EC:7D30 (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Torosaurus eye moved up. TotalDino (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass: Okay, looks better. 2A00:F44:3:7CDC:6634:294B:F720:DAE4 (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Velocisaurus skeletal

• 
  Skeletal reconstruction of Velocisaurus unicus, based on the holotype MUCPv-41 (right leg), and referred specimen MPCN-PV-370 (left leg)
• 
  Diagram of the metatarsals of the holotype of Velocisaurus unicus.
• 
  Size of Velocisaurus unicus, larger square equals one meter.

I made a skeletal reconstruction of Velocisaurus unicus as I felt it would be useful. I also created a quick diagram of the metatarsals of the holotype to help visualize their unqiue structure.Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

I haven't personally checked the references, but they look good (pass) to me. My only comments would be that you could show the right femur as well (since you've already drawn one anyway) for added clarity, and that italics seem unnecessary for all the text on the image (though of course that doesn't make it unusable). -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and the metatarsal diagram would benefit from a scale bar on the image. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Good point with the femur, I added that and it def feels more readable. I also switched the specimen names from italic to bold, but left the scale as is for visual consistency, and I added a scalebar to the metatarsal diagram. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

• Nice, but shouldn't the ungual of digit II in the right leg only reach to the distal end of the second phalanx of digit III? I mean, the very long digit III (in proportion to II and IV) is also found in highly cursorial birds such as emus and is an adaptation for cursoriality, and that Velocisaurus was highly cursorial is quite the point. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Velocisaurus seems to have relatively elongated claws compared to most noasaurs, at least based on the preserved fourth phalanx, so I tried to reflect that in the other claws, but I could see about shortening it a bit. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 14:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  My issue is not with the claws. Maybe its phalanx III-1 is just too short? It should be way longer than III-2, no? From the published skeletal foot, it looks like that the distal end of phalanx III-1 should be about level with the distal end of phalanx II-2? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Ah, I see what you mean. My proportions are based directly on the original description, which does have ||-2 extend past |||-1, although mine appears to extend a bit further due to differences in posing. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Added a size chart as well as I feel my old one doesn't really hold up in terms of accuracy or quality Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The text above the scalebar doesn't seem to be displaying properly, I'll try and fix it. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the size chart (and the earlier ones), isn't a little odd to show the human silhouette balancing tiptoe on the 'floor'? In other words, it should probably be pushed down a little. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Good point, I'll get on that Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

They've been adjusted Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Joaquinraptor casali

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Joaquinraptor size

• 
  Size

Size chart for the new megaraptorid Joaquinraptor - comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass unless anyone else has issues. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:C18F:5AB9:3EA3:642F (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Joaquinraptor (TD)

Joaquinraptor

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Pass looks good, can't see any issues. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:7AF3:2A1A:29AF:D033 (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Aniksosaurus

Please review for accuracy. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Austrocheirus skeletal/size

• 
  Skeletal reconstruction of Austrocheirus isasii, based on the holotype MMPM-PV 10003.
• 
  Size of Austrocheirus isasii, larger square equals one meter.

Skeletal reconstruction and size chart of Austrocheirus, based on a berthasaurid position Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision Why are the digits different sizes? Also if this is a berthasaurid, it should have abelisauroid-like digits. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:7AF3:2A1A:29AF:D033 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The digit sizes are based on Limusaurus, but modified to fit the known material. Berthasaura preserves some manual elements, but they’re not very well figured, and the paper states that they’re very similar to those of Limusaurus, so it seemed an appropriate basis. I am considering modifying the silhouette a bit but the material we have is very confusing. The paper states the phalanx and metacarpal to belong to the same digit, despite the phalanx being like half the width of the metacarpal, so I personally feel they may belong to different digits, but I decided to keep it this way because of NOR. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Some unreviewed Joaquinraptor arts

• 
• 
• 

Found in Commons, used in other language articles. Last one is pointed to have too short person. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

The first has the same issue as the Lythronax above -- way too large signature. 2001:4453:5EA:1100:A970:E077:2ABF:433B (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Person in the third one is 115cm measured in ImageJ based on scale bar. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Baryonyx by Maria Gartshore

• 

It is unused right now. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Major revisions: The jawline extends way too far back in the skull (past the eye!) Also the cloaca area strikes me as strange, but I can't put my finger on it. 2001:4453:5EA:1100:A970:E077:2ABF:433B (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Also, the hands are too large. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:5E54:B612:8660:3766 (talk) 22:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Too short, sorry. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:5E54:B612:8660:3766 (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure whether to flag this as fail or major revisions, but this image does not seem to be based on Baryonyx whatsoever. The skull anatomy in particular is a tipoff that it is based instead on Suchomimus, as it is almost 1:1 to the skull reconstruction published by Sereno et al. (1998). Borophagus (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I'd say fail. Not only is it based upon Suchomimus but the jawline is too wide, the cloaca looks strange, and the arms are too short and wide. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D5DF:6C0B:1A2F:AA27 (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

And the naris is visible. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:D5DF:6C0B:1A2F:AA27 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this except for the cloaca point. Our only preserved dinosaur cloaca is very strange, with that exact sort of bulging shape. It's not out of the question by any means. Driptosaurus (talk) 00:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Correct, but that's more common in ornithischians. Are there any other saurischian recons that depict a bulging cloaca? 2600:4040:5100:FC00:3AF0:8E6B:ED7D:49D7 (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Budden Canyon "Hypsilophodont" skeletal

• 
  Skeletal reconstruction of SC VRO4A-H, a small ornithopod from the Budden Canyon Formation.
• 
  Size of SC VRO4A-H, larger square equals one meter.

Skeletal reconstruction of an ornithopod leg from the Budden Canyon Formation of California.

Edit: I replaced the individual size chart with a size chart of Budden Canyon reptiles as that seemed more useful.Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issuses. Aventadoros (talk) 05:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Kunpengornis

• 
  Kunpengornis

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

• A more general perspective issue, where the claw emerges from the toe should not look this rounded in lateral view, but more like a straight line, see for example diagrams here:[4] Otherwise it makes it look like all the toes are turned towards the viewer, even the hallux. So it makes sense for the closest frontmost toe that this junction is rounded, but not for the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

  Neck lengthened and posture adjusted, perspective of toe claws adjusted. TotalDino (talk) 07:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Mongolian pterosaur

• 

is this accurate? Themanguything (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Please post this on the Paleoart review. This is the wrong review. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:BC37:E464:B731:C417 (talk) 19:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This needs major revisions . There aren't any pycnofibers from the spine onwards, and what appears to be the pterosaur's prey in censored. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:BC37:E464:B731:C417 (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think this piece is best to be rejected outright. It is not far off of being close proportionally or in the details, but there are just enough small things that to fix it would come close to redrawing it IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:03, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with IJReid that this is unusable. In addition to various issues with the illustration, the photo of the paper is blurry and the big white blotches make it unsuitable for encyclopedic use. Also, which Mongolian pterosaur is this supposed to represent? MPC 100/116-118? Gobiazhdarcho? (Finally, in the future, pterosaurs should be submitted to WP:PALEOART rather than here). Skye McDavid (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Those white blotches are the pterosaur's prey, a juvenile titanosaur. The uncensored version is on @Themanguything's Reddit account. Even so, this is almost certainly a fail. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:AC7B:1013:DBDF:13E5 (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

What's the point of censoring that here? WP:Wikipedia is not censored. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

i edited it out because the titanosaur was 100% innacurate in proportions Themanguything (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ahshislesaurus wimani

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass. I don't see anything to change. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Chico fm. size chart

Size chart of known archosaurs of the Chico Formation, larger square equals one meter.

Size chart of known Archosaurs from the Chico Formation, may update down the line to include all reptiles. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Vitosaura colozacani

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 20:17, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: For me looks good, I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Antarctosaurus reconstruction

Antarctosaurus

Realized we don’t have a proportionally accurate recon of this important taxon so I made one. Please review for accuracy. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

No issues, this is an immediate pass. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:97C4:BA77:808:F2DF (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure about the placement of the nostril and the osteoderms along the back. Might need minor revisions. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The position of the nostril follows Gunnar Bivens' skeletal while the osteoderms follow Randomdinos' Mendozasaurus Atlantis536 (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The osteoderms on that Mendozasaurus reconstruction are aligned much more dorsally than the ones you have here. They're also farther down the tail. I would move the osteoderms closer to the midline of the back and toward the tail since the current image gives the impression that they are sticking out of the animal's sides rather than on its back. Driptosaurus (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Osteoderms moved to match Ddinodan’s Utetitan below. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

osteoderm position looks good. Driptosaurus (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass Looks good to use, although the beak is speculative. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:3AF0:8E6B:ED7D:49D7 (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Ahshislepelta skeletal

Skeletal and accompanying size chart of Ahshislepelta minor.

• 
  Skeletal reconstruction of Ahshislepelta minor, based on the holotype SMP VP-1930.
• 
  Size of Ahshislepelta minor, larger square equals one meter.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass. No obvious errors. But if I may request, can you do an ankylosaurid version based on Wiersma & Irmis, 2018? 112.201.200.80 (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass I had previously scaled the fossil elements of this one and I find everything in order and very well done. I'm just wondering about the scapula. What photos did you use in addition to the article where it was named? I mean, it's identical, but I see white areas I didn't know existed. Just curious. Levi bernardo (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s the right scapula, it covers a fair bit of the gap between the two parts of the left scapulacoracoid. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Similicaudipteryx

Happened to feature this taxon in a drawing I'm working on so I extracted this PNG for wiki. Olmagon (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Revisions: It's difficult to tell here which feathers are meant to be contour feathers or more downy feathers, but anything that isn't a pennaceous feather wouldn't be capable of producing a blue coloration like you have here. Downy feathers don't have the complex structure necessary to produce blues like that. Additionally, you have an odd number of large tail feathers. There should be a central pair rather than a single central feather. Driptosaurus (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Which parts of the body are supposed to be the downy areas, I only managed to find that Caudipteryx preserves pennaceous feathers at all and that there was a study finding it would be a bluish-black kinda color. I suppose an easy fix would be to mess with the hue and lightness to make it a darker blue instead of this light one, like maybe Mikado pheasant type color where it is closer to black? Olmagon (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

We don't know which parts are downy/pennaceous. The fossil of Caudipteryx preserves some pennaceous feathers, but it does not preserve feathers across the whole body, just the limbs. So it's up to you to determine what is most reasonable for integument. I have seen reconstructions of Caudipteryx with downy body feathers like Beipiaosaurus and more smooth, birdlike body feathers- I would just advise you to make the type of feather clearer with your texture, since the back looks downy and the chest looks more like contour feathers. Driptosaurus (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Changed the back texturing to look more contour and added the extra tail feather. Olmagon (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure bright blue would be possible for caudipterid feathers? Protofeathers are nearly impossible to be cold-colored. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:3AF0:8E6B:ED7D:49D7 (talk) 23:29, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Caudipteryx was secondarily flightless and had a pennaceous structure. Considering how close Oviraptorisaurs are to the other pennaraptorans, I don't think it's particularly unlikely. We don't know if the body of Caudipteryx had protofeathers or complex ones, but given that it descended from flighted ancestors, the latter is more likely as just about every feathered flying dinosaur has pennaceous body feathers. It's speculative but far from impossible. Driptosaurus (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Alright, works for me. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:C513:E84:D467:4100 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Utetitan zellaguymondeweyae

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass as always Looks good. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:62D:227E:1775:C266 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass, it's a great titanosaur reconstruction as always, regardless of the potentially controversial nature of the species. Driptosaurus (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: Looks great at always, it's a typical titanosaur reconstruction. Aventadoros (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Brontotholus harmoni

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass as always Looks good. How large was this animal? 2600:4040:5100:FC00:62D:227E:1775:C266 (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Overall, the reconstruction looks anatomically correct, but shouldn't it have more visible ossified tendons in the tail, similar to Zavacephale? It seems to me that ossified tendons are typical for pachycephalosaurs. 2A00:F44:D1:F5CE:F394:4BB0:A83B:FAF7 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

You mean the base of the tail should be stiffer, or? Not sure how else it would be visible in life. And apparently the idea that they were tendons is an outdated idea. FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I am referring to the depth of the tail. In Zavacephale, it was thick due to ossified tendons, and shouldn't the tail of Brontotholus also be like that? 2A00:F44:82:A50D:A0A0:A63:6619:FB02 (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Pachycephalosaurs do not have ossified tendons in their tail, they are myorhabdoids (flexible structures similar to myomeres seen in fish).

The tail of Brontotholus is not known, thus its depth cannot be commented on. The tail here is based on Stegoceras. Ddinodan (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Is there even enough of the tail (and associated structures) of Stegoceras preserved to comment on its depth? (just asking, I'm not familiar with all of the specimens). -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

UALVP 2 has enough of the tail for me. Ddinodan (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Ahshislesaurus skeletal

• 
  Skeletal reconstruction of Ahshislesaurus wimani, based on the holotype USNM PV-8629 and several referred specimens.
• 
  Skeletal reconstruction of Ahshislesaurus wimani, based on the holotype USNM PV-8629 and referred specimen NMMNH P-66929.
• 
  Skeletal reconstruction of tentatively referred material of Ahshislesaurus wimani, based on the specimens NMMNH P-25057, 32928, 32885, 102629, and NMMNH P-RMS 2013-7.
• 
  Size of holotype and largest specimens of Ahshislesaurus wimani, larger square equals one meter.

Skeletal diagram of the new hadrosaur Ahshislesaurus wimani. As some of the material is only tentatively referred to the taxa I decided to upload three versions, one simply showing all known material in a single composite, and two showing the confidently and tentatively referred material respectively, with color coding for each specimen. I also included a size chart as always, this time showing the size of both the holotype and largest referred specimen, as the maximum size in the species was something mentioned heavily in press releases and other media. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: For me all skeletals looks good Aventadoros (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Are the colours on the legend for the scale chart the right way around? As is, the "largest specimen" NMMNH P-25057 is keyed to the smaller of the two silhouettes. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 00:34, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any glaring issues with the skeletals themselves, good work there. Minor note: there is a transparent bar at the top of the size chart where the white background doesn't quite reach the top of the image. I assume this was unintentional? -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I actually caught it earlier and tried to upload a fixed version but Wikipedia wouldn't let me as it thought the file was identical to the previous version lol, hopefully with the key fixed it'll register the changes. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

That still didn't do it. I even increased the resolution slightly to try and get it to register as different but no luck. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Anteavis crurilongus

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It almost looks like the right metatarsus is longer than the left? Pass otherwise. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

• Needs revisions – Compared to the published skeleton, digit I is too long (it should not extend past the distal end of the metatarsals). Also, digit V is missing. The lower jaw looks too thick, too (Eodromaeus was also reconstructed with a much more slender jaw). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

  Adjusted the digits. The lower jaw is the correct depth. Ddinodan (talk) 16:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Huayracursor jaguensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 17:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass for me, looks good. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Appalachiosaurus

Appalachiosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• The toes seem extremely long, especially on the left foot, and shouldn't the lacrimal crest area be covered by some sort of rugose keratin extensions rather than the same scale texture as the rest of the skin? FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

  Toes shortened, and keratin added. TotalDino (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Anzu wyliei by GabrieMacrothorax

• 

Uploaded by user who uploaded images discussed in paleoart review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

The only possibly issue I see is the beak covering the sinus. From what I understand this is pretty unlikely. Beyond that I think it’s great! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

La Colonia parankylosaur

An unreviewed sketch of La Colonia parankylosaur. Any comments?

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 06:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Iirc the specimen is undescribed and no photos currently exist, so I'm not sure if its even possible to determine accuracy. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Alamosaurus & Utetitan size chart update

With the description of Utetitan, it would make sense to update the size chart, with the aim of de-Alamosaurus-ing it. Because all the North American titanosaurids are fragmentary, there is a load of uncertainty as to the size and proportions of these specimens. Possible update can be seen here. In this version, I have included the Alamosaurus type specimen, even though it's just a scapula.

One key issue is the large cervical series, BIBE 45854, which could impact nearly all the silhouettes. There are a couple of ways people have cross-scaled the specimen. One way is using the juvenile TMM 43621-1 as the primary guide, which results in larger-bodied restorations, like Paul's and Hartman's skeletals. The silhouettes in this diagram follow this interpretation. However, Tykoski & Fiorillo (2017) and a couple of online skeletals, have used a large-ish specimen, TMM 41541-1, that preserves both dorsals and cervicals. It seems to suggest a larger neck to body ratio. Alas, the specimen is not well described at the moment. For example, some of these interpretations suggest the BIBE 45854 cervicals come from an animal similar in size to USNM 15560, just with a large neck, like seen here and here, and here. Paul also briefly mentions the uncertainty over cross-scaling BIBE 45854, but does not specifically mention TMM 41541-1 as the reason for this. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks good to me! I think it’s smart to not just label them Utetitan and Alamosaurus and instead label them as the holotype of each, as I’ve seen some skepticism towards Utetitan and there’s a good chance it might become a nomen dubium in the future. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to label the chart as "Maastrichtian North American titanosaurs" (or titanosaurians), given that the use of the family Titanosauridae has been abandoned by most researchers? Sittaco (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just using the terminology in Paul's paper. I've changed to 'Titanosaurs' also fixed a typo.Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus annectens

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any issues. Aventadoros (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass likewise for me. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:2A35:8720:A123:B27D (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Instant pass: As always a good reconstruction based on the verey latest studies. Not sure what this means for the other reconstructions we have, though -- do we update them (as we used to do) or just replace them all with Dan's (as has been an unspoken rule for about a year now?) 112.201.199.64 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

We need to replace your obsession over me with a better bit Ddinodan (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I just snapped, I guess. 112.201.199.64 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep "snapping" when you're told this adds nothing every time? Anyway, if this level of disruption continues, we might have to call for administrator action. FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

See this gem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ddinodan

This same person (I believe) commented on Dan's talk, saying how his art was being "plastered everywhere". 2600:4040:5100:FC00:9FE9:7231:F789:C971 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It was never my intent to personally attack anyone, but I understand why my comments caused concern. Do note that I have Asperger’s syndrome, which is why as much as I wanted to stop, I ended up snapping. But I’ll do my best to refrain from further discussion about that as much as I can. But be warned, though, I can’t guarantee a full stop. 112.201.199.64 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No, you have to do a full stop. I also have Asperger's, but you shouldn't behave like this. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8E9D:C4C6:C83:3229 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll try my best. 112.201.199.64 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

OK. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:54D1:BBC1:9480:EAC2 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

As someone who was also diagnosed, you should know that it is distasteful to use your difference as an excuse. Your rhetoric is tiresome, and we'd rather you dedicate your time on something more productive.

We'd rather not drop a ballistic on your wikipedia presence. Please make good on your promise this time.

PostScript: I regret to inform you that some users have disagreed with my stance on not dropping anything on your Wikipedia presence. Well, i should say that this collection of users also includes me, for disclosure's sake.Anthropophoca (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

You know what. I quit. I will stop engaging with this page as much as possible. 112.201.199.64 (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Works by Benwrops

• 
  Caenagnathus
• 
  Scolosaurus

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Doesn't the first claw of the Caenagnathus look too massive? Would be an easy fix, perhaps notify the artist about this page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Benwrops The Morrison Man (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Should be fixed! It's my first time doing stuff like this with wikipedia so let me know if the change isn't visible or if there's anything else I need to edit! Benwrops (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Athenar bermani

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 05:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: This is a fragmentary taxon and we do not know any other anatomical details, so showing the general structure of a dicreosaurid is correct in my opinion. Aventadoros (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Athenar (TD)

Athenar

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Nanotyrannus lancencis & N. lethaeus

• 
• 

Ddinodan (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

In general they both look great, but I'm not sure if the skull on lancensis is correct. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The skull on lancensis is correct. This is based on a particular specimen, per the image description. Ddinodan (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware, I don't think that sort of kink before the nasal fenestra is represented in the actual fossil. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a ridge of keratin on the nasal. Ddinodan (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate it as an aesthetic choice, but for the sake of Wiki use it may be best to make the keratin ridge follow the shape of the nasal more closely, as the current shape does somewhat imply an incorrect skull shape. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a non-issue and will not be adjusted. Ddinodan (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The cranial profile is based on my schematic, which attempted to reconstruct the anteroposteriorly disarticulated cranium and account for taphonomic disturbance in the posterior skull (i.e jugal, squamosal, quadratojugal). Furthermore, said schematic was given some notes by James Napoli, who had said the reconstructed skull provided in Zanno and Napoli 2025 had issues in the scan mesh and sutural contacts, and more importantly, that the rostrum of NCSM 40000 was dorsoventrally flattened somewhat. With this in mind, the above reconstruction is perfectly reasonable, and strictly speaking, the "truest" form of the skull will be hitherto unknown until the forthcoming osteology is formally published. LancianIdolatry (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to share this schematic? I can’t seem to find it and it would be helpful to be able to directly compare. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I've decided to not make it public because there are several internal concerns that I have about it's cranial topology and I am far more content merely waiting for the osteology. More importantly though, I miscommunicated with Dan, and his art was based on an earlier and different edit of mines made in parallel with my schematic, and for that misunderstanding I apologize. With that in mind, many of the original comments still hold true- the shape is strictly unknown and what can be said and compared with N. lethaeus demonstrates the shape of the cranium in the above profile is still fine as-is. LancianIdolatry (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand the logic, but I’m afraid I just don’t see a way that the head of the N. lancensis can fit into currently published reconstructions. I have no doubt that the schematic used is more accurate, but without being able to look at it there’s no way to verify. With that in mind, for me at least, the N. lethaeus is a PASS, but I’m afraid I have to say NEEDS REVISION for the N. lancensis, at least until the reference used can be made public. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You can see the uncrushed skull under my illustration here: https://imgur.com/DxmXuqx

I am not adjusting the keratinous crest when it constitutes perhaps 3-5 pixels in height difference. I recall when Tameryraptor was published, almost the exact opposite was what was requested of me; that I deviate further from the existing material to satisfy what ultimately boils down to subjective opinions on what is and is not highly speculative.

Extremely minor things like these are not what constitute appropriate critique, and instead err on the side of nitpicking. Ddinodan (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. It’s definitely closer than I thought (though seems to be based on NCSM 40000 rather than the holotype as indicated by the description. But the nasal/premaxilla contact does seem to be displaced, and I still feel that the crest on the nose is a rather big deal as it significantly affects the silhouette. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It is a crest. Of course it is going to affect the silhouette, it does so on every tyrannosaur reconstruction that has one.

The description does say NCSM 40000. Ddinodan (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Utetitan (TD)

Utetitan

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Nanotyrannus prey capture

Nanotyrannus attacks a small prey item using its forelimbs.

Hello, not sure if there’s a rule against posting work in progress but I wanted to make sure the proportions were good here before moving on. This piece is intended to show off the larger forelimbs of Nanotyrannus and their potential use in predation.

Let me know if I’ve made any major anatomical mistakes, I know the teeth are missing. Accurate dentition, color, background, etc, will be added as the piece progresses. Driptosaurus (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)