Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

= Images in review =

Amargasaurus and Bravoceratops skeletals
I have added reconstructions of Amargasaurus and Bravoceratops skeletals by Gunnar Bivens. I think they may be useful for Wikipedia articles. As far as their correctness is concerned, I have no objections.

Aventadoros (talk) 10:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * They seem accurate enough to me, but I'm more concerned with the large amounts of text on the images. Maybe that can be removed? It would also allow for the skeletons to take up more of the image space. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Things I notice with the Amargasaurus: it has the wrong number of presacral vertebrae—it is depicted with a missing cervical and missing dorsal for a total of 13 cervicals and 12 dorsals, even though the specimen, which I believe was found in articulation, has only 12 cervicals and 11 dorsals. It is also depicted with gastralia, but there is no undisputed evidence for gastralia in sauropods and they were probably absent. The left wrist looks somewhat anatomically improbable. The dorsal rib placement is also wonky-looking; the capitulum should be tracking the placement of the parapophysis but instead it's remaining at the base of the neural arch throughout the series. Other than that, it looks good, as far as I can tell. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, text looks unprofessional. Less is clearly more here. I would even go as far as to remove all text, and even the human and the baseline; that could look much cleaner. When embedded in an article, those elements do not add anything (the Amargasaurus article already has two scale charts featuring humans). If you like to add it to Amargasaurus, note that it is a Featured Article, so we have to closely follow the guidelines (e.g., watermarks/author names on the image are discouraged). But yes, looks very good otherwise. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, one other thing I note—three chevrons of the holotype of Amargasaurus cazaui are preserved, but they're not depicted here (Two dorsal ribs are also preserved, but they appear to be from the left side of the animal so I suppose they wouldn't be visible here). Ornithopsis (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and cropped out the extra text and "clutter". -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Though I wonder if it would be smart to at least include a measurement next to the scale bar? The Morrison Man (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gastralia in Amargasaurus? Not saying it's necessarily wrong, but the existence of gastralia in eusauropods is controversial. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This one hasn't been reviewed.
 * Inawentu oslatus Skeletal.png Aventadoros (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone could upload a new file with the information trimmed as well. Levi bernardo (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Back to Home
Hello, I'm back here, I was updating my drawings and scanning them for the last month after a resurgence of my passion for editing Wikipedia, uploading drawings, photographs and categorizing on Commons (I must thank the paleoartists Ventura Salas and Joschua Knüppe for my total reactivation of the passion for paleoart). The pandemic and quarantine hit me very hard (I think like everyone else) and I was very depressed for the last 4 years. Anyway, I'm back home (here), and I discovered that the Wikiproyect is more active on paleoart and images since I became inactive, good to see that, forgive me if I didn't respond to the times some of you tagged me. Now I'll read most of the archives from 2021 to present, I've read a few of them, and I'm not going to lie when I say that when I read Miracusaurs' comment about the Tlatolophus drawing in Archive 5 I laughed for a whole minute, you made my day, thank you! Well, I will ask you to please review some of the latest updates of the drawings and other new ones that I made. Any comments, advice or constructive criticism is welcome, thanks in advance! --Levi bernardo (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've also been working on an illustration of Banji, I saw that a miniature Banji illustration by Matt Martyniuk from a plate was cropped, extracted and enhanced with AI by a Russian biologist, the illustration changed a little with it, but It looks decent, maybe we could ask Matt for the original file or something to improve that image even more,I am trying to learn more about Oviraptosaurs to review the facial, mandibular and keratin details to give more coherence and improvement to my current illustration and perhaps the old ones of Huanansaurus and Hagryphus.
 * I was also working on editions and anatomical arrangements for Lepidus, I couldn't believe that I had the physical update done for 4 years and that the drawing is almost a decade old and that I had not yet edited it since 2015. I haven't finished editing the head and hands yet, the right leg needs a slight shortening. Levi bernardo (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given how fragmentary Lepidus is, any Lepidus illustration will be heavily based on more complete ancestral theropods such as Coelophysis or Megapnosaurus, but based on those the neck is proportionally way too thick. These animals had both slender bodies and slender necks. As for Banji, could you clarify what you mean by "enhanced with AI"? At the very least this seems like it is based on Matt Martyniuk's copyrighted work, and would not be clear-cut case of Fair Use so it is not suitable for Wikipedia in this form. Skye McDavid (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact it was updated following the anatomy of Coelophysis and the skull of Megapnosaurus. I had already thinned the neck by 25%, I will try to review in more detail how thinner the neck can be, but also perhaps one reason why it looks so thick is that it has some filaments that increase its apparent thickness.  Thank you!Banji long.jpg
 * The specific image I am referring to that is here in Commons, you can look at the version history and you will notice the changes between the first version and the updated one and you will notice the changes made, it would be necessary to analyze whether or not it is really improved with AI . That's why I mentioned that image, to know what to do in these cases and review its cranial anatomy. Levi bernardo (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * According to the metadata of the image, it was apparently retouched with Paint.NET, so I may have been wrong in relating it to an AI alteration Levi bernardo (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding filaments on Lepidus, I see no reason to put a thick layer of filaments on the neck and a much thinner one one the body itself. Coelphysoids largely have similar proportions, so Scott Hartman's Coelophysis skeletal is a good reference. Note that many reconstructions based on older skeletal reconstructions have the gastralia too high, with insufficient dorsoventral space for internal organs. As for the retouched image, it can only be used on Wikipedia if both the original work and the modified version are freely licensed. The original version (Matt's) is freely licensed but I don't know about the one retouched by the "Russian biologist". It would have to be published under a Wikipedia-compatible license to be used here. The illustration you have linked seems to be a life reconstruction digitally layered below the skull diagram already used in the article. No copyright status on DeviantArt, and in my opinion wouldn't add value to the article. Skye McDavid (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will keep Lepidus comments in mind, in fact I was editing the portion of the area that goes from gastralia to pubis, but I certainly omitted that detail, thank you, I had only enlarged the pubic section and ignored the gastralia portion. As for the filaments, I will see how to solve it and give it a better appearance. --Levi bernardo (talk)
 * March 27 revision of Lepidus looks nice. Skye McDavid (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thanks. I will continue to gradually modify more details step by step. Thanks for the help. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As for Banji:, I think I've already created a confusion. I mean that my image is my complete authorship in the artistic aspect and based directly on the skull diagram in Xu & Han 2010, (and I want to upload it to Commons, but first review it here). I leave a video of the SpeedPaint as proof. I suppose that by wanting to mention the other illustration I generated this confusion. What I wanted to know was if we could use the illustration or renew it, and if necessary ask Matt to update it, I recently saw him on Facebook mentioning an illustration of his that was published in a newspaper and I thought maybe we could ask him for an image of that work of yours in better resolution. Excuse my errors, I am not a native English speaker and even though I know how to speak it more than the last time I was here, I still cannot apply the exact terms and in the proper grammatical order. Levi bernardo (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I improved Banji's illustration, I corrected the mouth area and found the appropriate way to reconstruct it, and also increased the keratin of the crest and beak by percentage. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Banji illustration almost ready. Levi bernardo (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is an progress of Lepidus. Levi bernardo (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Modifications applied to Lepidus, I will add details to the hands and others to the head later. Levi bernardo (talk) 05:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Chakisaurus now has color. --Levi bernardo (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The background individuals are admittedly a little distracting. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The plan was to make a non-lateral illustration that will also show the refieres juvenile specimens to the genus. I think I will have to add details to them so that they are better aesthetically and also if possible some more background. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Details added to Brighstoneus. Levi bernardo (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Adelolophus
Hello again, now I will try to go in alphabetical order of the illustrations that I had left unfinished, I will start with Adelolophus and this is the progress I have, I increased the size of the crest so that it becomes a true parasauroloph adult and not a subadult. I think I need to review and correct the medial process area of the premaxilla. comments? --Levi bernardo (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the keratinous part of the beak extend even further downwards, as we know from at least one Edmontosaurus specimen? The shape of the beak didn't really follow the shape of the jaw tips closely. FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * yes, Funkmonk is correct. Beak should be shaped like a hoe rather than a duck's bill. Additionally, someone should digitally clean up the scanner noise. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Provisionally ready and added the beak modification mentioned by FunkMonk, plus I corrected what I had said was missing. Thank you. I made the correction digitally, then I will do it physically. Comments? Levi bernardo (talk) 05:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it's well made. Aventadoros (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's fine as a speculative Parasaurolophin but I don't think something this speculative is appropriate for an infobox photo. Skye McDavid (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. Well, i wasn't the one who added it, but we'll definitely have to make a fossil illustration or find a photo of the fossil that has a CC license. Levi bernardo (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

So after what was said above, I took the initiative to look for available images of the Adelolophus fossil, but I did not find anything specific. Until I saw that Angel A. Ramirez-Velasco's diagram of North American hadrosaur skulls was available because the article is hosted in a journal with a proper CC license. The problem with the image is that although the illustration of the fossil and the diagram of the silhouette of the skull were extracted with high resolution, it is still a miniature. So I started making a real-size illustration of the fossil in its real colors and this was the result. I think I will make a version that also includes the other available views of the fossil. And although I hate black and white images of fossils, I think the illustration I made looks just a little better in gray, so the future composition will be in grayscale. ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Adelolophus holotype multiple views.png
 * The multiple view illustration, made in graphite, is ready. Levi bernardo (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Huanansaurus
Since I was illustrating Banji I decided it was time to fix and improve the illustration I had of Huanansaurus as I had already said I would do. Comments? --Levi bernardo (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's the shading, but the lower jaw looks much skinnier than the upper jaw. This doesn't track with the mandibular symphysis being described as "short and broad". Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I made corrections regarding the bony "tooth" area to give it the appearance it should have and to correct an obvious and glaring error. I had tried to investigate this matter by researching the anatomy of oviraptosaurus skulls but I had not found much about it the first time and I had already come across illustrations that correctly reconstructed the "tooth" but I had ignored them. I enlarged the area of the lower jaw just behind the beak by just a percentage, I think that with that and with the correction to the correct anatomy of the "tooth" they should give a thicker appearance. What is true is that the jaw here is just a little open, when it is completely closed it makes its appearance even thinner and smaller. (Note that the head has a taller appearance due to the percentage increase in potential Keratin in the crest). Thanks, this was the final trigger to reach the correct conclusion of the bony "tooth" Levi bernardo (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That looks much better. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done Levi bernardo (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Abrosaurus
I have made basic updates to Abrosaurus illustration, added lips, (I'm not sure if the way of how the tongue look is appropriate. Maybe not) filled and matched the fenestra areas and added skin to the lower part of the jaw - neck, as well as improvements to the eye area and around it. I will also update the full body illustration later. Now that better photographic images of the skull are available I will redo the illustration I made of the skull. Levi bernardo (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Acantholipan
I have made basic updates to Acantholipan. I'll add more shadows and textures, and maybe color later. Comments? ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The Acantholipan osteoderm situation is complicated. The authors interpret the spine as deriving from the "posterior thoracic" region, even going so far as to include this in their diagnosis for the taxon. Since this is discussed in some detail, it might be more appropriate to include that in the drawing. -SlvrHwk (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the exact approximate position that they provide for the osteoderm, on the first occasion that they study the specimen they only label it as "a distal thoracic osteoderm that is missing its base" and in the study where it is named it is interpreted as "a posterior thoracic osteoderm." In the illustration, the osteoderm is expressed as a lateral thoracic spine just above the humerus, which was placed based on how it appears in the diagram of Ramírez-Velasco & Hernández-Rivera 2015. (But inverted, since it is neither a basal Nodosaur nor an Edmontonia) Levi bernardo (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Adratiklit
I have made basic updates and added color to Adratiklit. Comments? ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a dacentrurine but is the neck perhaps too long and flexible? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The length is revised and is very directly influenced by Miragaia. Flexibility is logical, at this point it should not be a problem. Levi bernardo (talk) 11:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Adynomosaurus
I have made basic updates and added color to Adynomosaurus. Comments? ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In my opinion limbs are to skinny. Aventadoros (talk) 08:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * True, now that I see it, I think there is some muscle and ligament missing from the area where the humerus and radius connect. These Lambeosaurines had thin front legs, but they did need more power in the muscles and ligaments to support weight.  Thank you. Levi bernardo (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done Levi bernardo (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Aegyptosaurus
I have made basic updates and added color to Aegyptosaurus. Comments? ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Afromimus
Due to Kiyacursor's recent description, I racked my brain thinking about which group it really belonged to or what this enigmatic animal that had already changed shape since its description would really resemble. I had commented that perhaps I would finish the naosaurid-type version and that perhaps I would make a version where it is interpreted as a Naosauridae taxon sister to Kiyacursor and similar to Berthasaura and Limusaurus + Elaphrosaurus. I made a drawing of Kiyacursor that will serve as the basis for Afromimus. Any opinion and suggestion is completely welcome, the truth is I have been very unsure of how to proceed that is why I have delayed and paused this particular drawing for a long time. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Ahshislepelta
I have made basic updates to Ahshislepelta. Comments? ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Albalophosaurus
I have made basic updates and added color to Albalophosaurus. Now that it was published that Albalophosaurus could be the most basal member of Pachycephalosauria I also decided to make a version that shows it as such, almost a generalized Marginocephalia but with similarities to Goyocephale. The version where it is shown as basal Ceratopsia will be edited with one of the previous versions that I scanned just before modifying it to transform into Pachycephalosauria --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Albertadromeus
I have made basic updates and added color to Albertadromeus. A diagram showing the elements of the holotype is also on the way. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Albertavenator
I have made basic updates and added color to Albertavenator. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Albinykus
I have made basic updates and added color to Albinykus. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Alnashetri
I will be making improvements to this illustration in the coming days, in addition to the logical things that I could or that you expect me to correct or improve, what would you consider improving, altering, correcting about it?. I saw that some life restorations models that have been shared by the co-author of the Alnashetri description (Sebastian Apasteguia) show it as similar to a basal Alvarezsauroid, plus additional specimens are in preparation and are quite complete. I'll try to stick with what's available for now, but taking into account the 2016 abstract and its potential similarity to the Alvarezsauroids --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Amargatitanis
I have made basic updates and added color to Amargatitanis. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Amazonsaurus
I have made basic updates and added color to Amazonsaurus. The anatomy of the extremities was modified after careful observation by Aventadoros --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks good for me. Aventadoros (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Amtocephale
I will be making improvements to this illustration in the coming days, in addition to the logical things that I could or that you expect me to correct or improve, what would you consider improving, altering, correcting about it?. The most recent version of the drawing so far is this --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Amygdalodon
I will be making improvements to this illustration in the coming days, in addition to the logical things that I could or that you expect me to correct or improve, what would you consider improving, altering, correcting about it?. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Anasazisaurus
I will be making improvements to this illustration in the coming days, in addition to the logical things that I could or that you expect me to correct or improve, what would you consider improving, altering, correcting about it?. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Andesaurus
I will be making improvements to this illustration in the coming days, in addition to the logical things that I could or that you expect me to correct or improve, what would you consider improving, altering, correcting about it?. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Angolatitan
I have made basic updates and added color to Angolatitan. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Angulomastacator
I will be making improvements to this illustration in the coming days, in addition to the logical things that I could or that you expect me to correct or improve, what would you consider improving, altering, correcting about it? I will make an alternative version where it is shown as a Lambeosaurini --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Yeah, making alternative version as Lambeosaurini is good idea, because Angulomastacator as Parasaurolophini is questionable Aventadoros (talk) 09:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Aralosaurus
I have made basic updates and added color to Aralosaurus. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Archaeornithoides
I have made basic updates to Archaeornithoides. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Australodocus
I have made basic updates and added color to Australodocus. --Levi bernardo (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Austroposeidon
I have made basic updates and added color to Austroposeidon. Comments? ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Udelartitan
I made this drawing when it was named. So I wanted to review it. Comments? ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Should the osteoderms be a bit lower down on the back? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You are right, at least a little lower would be necessary for it to be correct and adequate. Thank you. Levi bernardo (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Musankwa
Newly described massopodan. Comments? ––Levi bernardo (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In my opinion looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Santanaraptor
I was going to modify an old sketch into something useful, and saw it could fit Santanaraptor, which has no proper restoration. Here it's modified to match that, should of course have feathers and so on, it's just a base drawing. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that it's only known from a foot and it's phylogenetic position isn't certain, I'm not sure how insightful a life restoration would be. The mount that is currently used in the article is incredibly speculative, and it would be better to be replaced with a drawing of the foot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, that's of course an entire discussion in itself, but I think every valid genus warrants a restoration that will give the reader some general idea of what the animal in question could have looked like in life. In this particular case, if made generic enough, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether it ends up being classified as a sort of basal maniraptoran or an early tyrannosaur (or heck, even a nosasaur), the restoration wouldn't really be too different either way. So no proceratosaurid-like crest, and the fingers can be made shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Just adding a note that I'll return to this soon, so it isn't automatically archived. A slightly updated version with feather outlines: FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Finally finished this up with colour, after adjusting some features following comments on the Discord server. Pinging who commented there, and  usually also has something to say about animals in this part of the tree. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Mostly looks good, but I'm wondering about the rationale for the wrist folding. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess that's due to the maniraptoran starting point, but I'd like to keep it as "generic" as possible to also go as other interpretations. I'm not entirely sure what the range of motion would be for more basal clades, should the hands jut straight out of the wrists to be safe? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At least a bit less, maybe something like Guanlong ? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, didn't know of that figure, in the meantime I had updated it to something that seems similar, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For me looks good, but does this wrist actually look correct? Aventadoros (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Correct in which way (it's not preserved)? I just noticed a much more serious issue, in the actual fossil the middle toe is much longer than the outer toes, so I'll have to shorten those... FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Images by User:PaleoNooby
Found those images by, especially Fylax is added without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * square decimeters are a very unintuitive unit to use, especially since the Fylax looks like a 50x50 cm square which would be 25dm², not 5dm². If these are to be used, the scale should be corrected and changed to meters or centimeters Skye McDavid (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * removed the Fylax from enwiki page because the scale is clearly wrong. I think this deserves an inaccurate paleoart tag until the scale is fixed, and same goes for the Meglosaur Skye McDavid (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Various dinosaurs
Redid my Protoceratops, and a few various. Please review for accuracy.


 * The beak of Gryposaurus looks rather strange, I do not see a keratinous coating on the upper part overlapping the lower part. This issue has not yet been resolved in Parasaurolophus with its crest (I mean as a species P. tubecin). Earlier, the appearance of the beak was more precisely addressed by in the Adelolophus section. In my opinion, these reconstructions represent the appearance of the beak very well.
 * In my opinion, you should now concentrate on improving the current reconstructions rather than creating new ones (the exception may be the newly described ones). The more new reconstructions you have, the harder it is to improve the old ones. I think for the moment it would be worthwhile to focus on improving beaks in hadrosaurids, removing the parascapular spike in Dacentrurus, clarifying the species name in Tarcha and correct ear hole in your Pachyrhinosaurus (closer as have your ceratopsids).

Aventadoros (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Aorun artwork


Here's my artwork for Aorun, a Jurassic alvarezsaur from the Shishugou Formation.The entire body shape is based on other basalmost alvarezsaurs like Haplocheirus and Shishugounykus. Tell me if there is anything else to correct. Much appreciated. Palaeotaku (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks quite top-heavy. The tail is proportionally very short and the feet are planted posterior to where the center of mass would have been. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Aorun.png Here's the changed version. Palaeotaku (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Skeletals by Red Natters
Bunch of unreviewed works by this user. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:12, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't like the splaying of the digits in Douzhanopterus. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Douzhanopterus looks like it may have stitched together from several existing diagrams. Note how some of the bones have black outlines and others have dark gray, and how some bones don't fit with each other. See especially posterior part of the cervical series and anterior part of caudal series. I suspect this may be plagiarized. Skye McDavid (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not one to judge when it comes to repurposing published diagrams, but the Xilousuchus is problematic. It conforms pretty closely to the skeletal in Nesbitt et al. (2010)'s redescription, right down to the single preserved maxillary tooth (why aren't the rest in the silhouette, at least?) The differences are where the problems lie in my opinion. In Red Natters' version:
 * The prong-and-groove premaxilla-maxilla articulation is replaced with a flat margin.
 * The braincase appears to be misinterpreted as fragments of the jugal and postorbital.
 * The cervical ribs don't actually articulate onto the vertebral rib facets.
 * The caudal vertebrae is shaded as if it preserves a complete neural spine (unlike in the fossil).
 * The clavicle is misinterpreted as a scapula.
 * Some of the other fossils aren't depicted at all (ungual, sacral vertebra, the other caudal vertebra).
 * This screams to me as someone who tried to recreate a published skeletal without understanding the animal's skeletal anatomy that well. NGPezz (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I hate putting inaccurate tags on people's work but I think this deserves one. Skye McDavid (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Unreviewed works collection

 * I question the choice to make the crested silhouette the default for Santanaraptor when it's not even definitely a tyrannosauroid. The Atrociraptor has quite spindly legs, especially compared to the other size comparison that already exists. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The other Atroci has very wonky perspective and leg posture, so it would be nice if the more diagrammatical one could be updated. FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I made the legs more robust and some other fixes, what do you think, ? FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems better. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 09:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Suchomimus tenerensis updated reconstruction

 * Reconstrução artística do Suchomimus.png
 * Suchomimus paleoart.jpg

Hello. I did a Suchomimus tenerensis reconstruction based on fossil ilustrations of MNN GDF 500 (holotype) and MNN GF501, Dan folkes skeletal (2023) and the digital skeletal reconstruction of Suchomimus from the  Spinosaurus is not a aquatic dinosaur  study by Sereno et al., 2022. I think it looks great and more accurate and updated to our interpretation of this taxon than the one old reconstruction that was in the page and the new one they placed in. So what do you think? What should I do to get it reviewd? Sauroarchive (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So this is mine reconstruction I'm talking about by the way
 * Sauroarchive (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, the tail is a bit short so it looks a bit off-balance, but that's a relatively minor issue I think. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * In addition to the tail being too short, the neural spines above the sacrum and back look too short. In this regard, the restorations used in the article are more accurate. The antorbital fenestra also seems sunken. FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This user created another reconstruction of Suchomimus, how is this? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also seems to have too short neural spines for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Koleken


Newly described abelisaur from Argentina. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Are there any abelisaurs confirmed to have osteoderms? Carnotaurus didn't have them, and its a close relative of this guy. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Yaverlandia head
So I made this Yaverlandia reconstruction, I can make a colored version, but for now this is the general shape Bubblesorg (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's going on with the extraoral tissues there. Is that a beak? Lips? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems to have an under-bite. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Lips, the gape is just used based on the book "Jurassic Park Institute Dinosaur Field Guide" as some of the theropods still have a gape regardless of oral tissue. --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that the lower jaw and it's lips seem to be jutting more towards the front than the upper jaw, which looks unnatural. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Like what do you mean by unnatural? Sorry I just wanted clarification --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider what the jaws would look like when they are closed. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * seems to have mandibular prognathism. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

T. mcraeensis
Found in Commons and seems unreviewed. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it seem likely that the legs would attach to the body with skin so far down? Seems to be almost below the knee. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is below the knee. I think that's worthy of an inaccurate tag. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Musankwa skeletal
Skeletal diagram for the new sauropodomorph, mostly using Riojasaurus as a base. I also included the fibula fragment that was initially found but then lost due to poor preservation, since it is included in the paper's figure. However, if it is preferred to have it excluded, I can do that. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks a little front-heavy? Maybe the tail posture. The femur drawing also seems a bit thicker than figure A2, particularly around the level of the trochanters. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of sauropodomorphs almost seem front-heavy no matter how you pose them. I rotated the body up so it looks a little more stable. Is that any better? I also slightly redrew part of the femur, so it should line up with the figure better. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think so. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 09:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Didn't see previous versions but this looks good. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Elemgasem nubilus


I decided to depict the abelisaurid Elemgasem nubilus. Путаниум (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


 * In my opinion it should have lips and the upper teeth should be invisible. Aventadoros (talk) 07:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lips are controversial, even though I would favor lips. Bigger issue is the occlusion of the dentary by maxillary teeth. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Tietasaura, Musankwa, and various
-New dinosaurs: Tietasaura & Musankwa -various other dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy.



UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Allosaurus seems to match A. jimmadseni instead of A. fragilis that it's labelled as. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Allosaurus species changed to jimmadseni. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In my opinion all dinosaurs look good, but I would lower the mandible slightly so that the snout is more open. Aventadoros (talk) 08:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * On Tietasaura, manual digits IV and V appear to be very stubby and not in line with the other digits - any particular reason? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Many basal ornithopods (including elasmarians) have smaller manual digits IV and V, sometimes higher up the manus. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The only case where metacarpals IV and V appear to be significantly displaced from the others among those taxa is Hypsilophodon. To my knowledge Mahuidacursor is the only (sensu stricto) elasmarian with a preserved manus, and it does not show this. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tietasaura fingers adjusted. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Featherless Coelopysis is unlikely. Feathers are ancestral to Dinosauria so being completely featherless as depicted is unlikely in a small animal so close to the base of Dinosauria. See also Hartman et al 2022 thermoregulatory modeling of Triassic Amniotes, modeling Coelophysis as feathered. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Works by User:UniverseScienceItaly
Added by without review. Are there any anatomical issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 02:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Protungulatum is only known from jawbones and teeth if I recall correctly. I don't know what the current consensus on its reconstructions is, but I believe it's been supposed to be a relative of Purgatorius or other stem-eutherians, so it doesn't look too off-base.. As for Efraasia, the feathers are a bit speculative, but we have a reconstruction of a feathered Pampadromaeus, so if that's fine, then this is probably fine.  This reconstruction of Spinostropheus is extremely speculative, but its not certain what specimens even belong to that genus, so we're not even sure what kind of theropod it is.  I would say that any reconstruction is fine, as long as the caption makes it clear that its a speculative restoration, but that's just my opinion on the matter (see also:  Gualicho, Deltadromeus).  Some reviewers I've seen would advise against this kind of speculation. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I reverted the use of the new reconstruction of Spinostropheus to the article body rather than the infobox. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps neither Spinostropheus version should be in the taxobox? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The feathery integument on Efraasia might be too speculative for Wikipedia purposes? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Should a species be specified for Protungulatum in the file description, seeing as five have been named? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but hard for us to know which species it is if the artist doesn't react. FunkMonk (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Added another mammal image (Buronius) by . I can't comment on anatomical accuracy, but the position without an actual tree branch for it to hold looks awkward. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah even through I told this user to review image first in their talk page, they still added this without review... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for advices, will add a branch for Buronius. Sorry for not posting here before adding on pages, didn't know i have to. Will here first next time UniverseScienceItaly (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying, could you also add which which species of Protungulatum you depicted in the image's description? FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Lourinhasaurus
I was rescuing some drawings that I made between 2015-2018. And among them was a Lourinhasaurus, which has been on my to-do list for a long time, now on Wikimedia there are two images of Lourinhasaurus, but as User: Lythronaxargestes had noted, the skin pattern and the way it is shown is incorrect in this and other Iberian sauropods that the artist made. (in the corresponding review) Visually and artistically it is beautiful, but it has that detail, in addition to the fact that the nasal opening is too high and too far back. Additionally, the orbital fenestrae are too demarcated. The skin has a somewhat Elephantine texture, which although is an appropriate way to apply and imitate for areas with wrinkles, areas with marks, etc. They are not exactly correct to what they really were to what is known about Tehuelchesaurus, Haestasaurus and Diplodocus sp. In addition, once you give a skin texture to something but it has a relatively high level of detail and the image is in high resolution so that the close-up makes it look like mammalian skin, you get into an interpretation problem. and what you intended to show becomes misleading and perhaps even anatomically incorrect at the dermal level. Now, my illustration still lacks details, and I will be increasing the size of the scales on the upper part of the body. When I finish it I will also modify the position of the most forward front leg, and I will correct the posture of the neck to an even higher one. Doing this style of scales is even worse than doing popcorn or flower-style strokes on close-up drawings. Levi bernardo (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hard to see at this resolution but does it have a beak like Camarasaurus? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * At the time of the scans it still did not touch the head area at all, it remained the same from the original time I had made the drawing, but I will include a structure of that type to that portion of the mouth Levi bernardo (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Agrosaurus
Here’s an Agrosaurus macgillivrayi I’ve made in Procreate. It’s based on Jaime Headden’s Thecodontosaurus (which may be a senior synonym) and in terms of style I was inspired by both and. What do you think?

(P.S. would this file be better transparent, with a white background, or should there be two versions, one transparent and one with a background?) Atlantis536 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The skull seems much more robust than Thecodontosaurus. Any particular reason? Also, I'm not sure the first digit would've been habitually flexed like that. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I edited the skull to be less robust after rechecking Jaime Headden’s skeletal, fixed the positioning of the hand claws, and added longer lines on the legs. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Some general comments that may apply to multiple of these:
 * I personally prefer white backgrounds rather than transparent, but either way I certainly wouldn't do two versions—that could get messy.
 * Obviously in life the legs wouldn't be clearly delineated all the way to the pelvis, but there would still have been visible separate musculature. That isn't really apparent in many of these, with the legs appearing to emerge from the abdomen.
 * When reconstructing the "farther" manus (right on these images) for bipeds, more attention should be given to the claws/fingers. The soft tissue "pad" should probably be reconstructed as obscuring the base of the claw there. Otherwise it looks like the claws emerge from a symmetrical stump, which isn't exactly realistic.
 * -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Agustinia
I noticed there’s no images of Agustinia ligabuei on Commons except for an inaccurate reconstruction by Nobu Tamura, so I made this. It’s based on Bellardini et al. 2022, which reinterprets the taxon as a rebbachisaurid. I used an unpublished skeletal by Gunnar Bivens as the base, adding beak tissue based on Lavocatisaurus and a yellowish color based on Diplodocus sp. as reported at SVP 2023. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What's going on with the digits of the right forelimb? It looks like it's standing on tip toes. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It was a bad attempt at perspective. I corrected it. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Analong
Here’s another one: Analong chuanjieensis, based on a skeletal by Gunnar Bivens. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Abditosaurus
Breaking the alphabetical order with this one, Abditosaurus kuehnei, based on the skeletal reconstruction in its description. Any comments or feedback? Atlantis536 (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The skeletal in the paper seems more schematic than rigorous, and as such I'm not sure it should be followed 100%. For instance, the form of the skull and the position of the nostril... Also, the hindlimb claws seem to project from the foot ventrally, and I feel that the osteoderms should perhaps be closer to the midline. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree that the paper's skeletal shouldn't be used as a reference for Abditosaurus (or any other titanosaur, for that matter). I've lost track of how many times it has been used in the literature (e.g. ), and it's never been modified to actually represent the relevant fossil material. That said, the phylogenetic position of Abditosaurus appears to be unstable, so as long as it is restored as a "generic" titanosaur it shouldn't be too much of a issue. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The claws were supposed to be drawn like that, referencing how sauropod hind toes point outwards. That said, I did made them look less obviously jutting out, along with moving the osteoderms. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Antrodemus
My first non-sauropodomorph—this is Antrodemus valens, a theropod that may just be a synonym of Allosaurus. As such, it is depicted as a generic allosaurid theropod based on a skeletal by Franoys. Any thoughts, comments, or feedback? Atlantis536 (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Aoniraptor
Here is a reconstruction of Aoniraptor libertatem, a mysterious theropod, as a megaraptoran, using Ashley Patch’s Australovenator as a base. This follows its original description and most studies including it. Any comments, thoughts, or feedback?

P.S. would it be okay if I also make a bahariasaurid version of this, following Cau (2024)? Atlantis536 (talk) 10:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see teeth. Aventadoros (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They’re hidden under lips. Atlantis536 (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What is the rationale for this distribution of feathering? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Megaraptorans are depicted often with “capes” of feathers, like this Tratayenia or this Australovenator Atlantis536 (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the lip situation here. Even modern reconstructions of lipped theropods often show at least the tips of the largest teeth. Until Cau's results (and "Bahariasauridae" in general) gain any support, it would be best to refrain from creating a version following that for Wikipedia. The legs are also definitely not the same size... -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I drew the lips in such a way that even the biggest teeth are covered — I even checked the skeletal to make sure. I also lengthened the leg. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Apatodon
Here’s a reconstruction of Apatodon mirus as an allosaurid theropod, after George Olshevsky’s identification of it as a synonym of Allosaurus. Yes, it’s just a minorly edited version of the Antrodemus above, and that’s because as possible close relatives or conspecifics, they would have likely not varied too much. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Arstanosaurus
All the images marked as “Arstanosaurus akkurganensis” on Commons belong to “Gadolosaurus”, which is probably a distinct taxon, so here’s my first ornithischian—a life reconstruction based on Gobihadros. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Asiaceratops
Asiaceratops salsopaludalis appears surprisingly often in phylogenetic analyses, but curiously there’s no restorations of it on Wikimedia Commons, so I made one. This one is based on the Leptoceratops skeletal by and modified by. Atlantis536 (talk) 03:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Asiamericana
Ah, Asiamericana asiatica, where to start? This restoration is based on Scott Hartman’s Microraptor, since the possibly synonymous Richardoestesia has been informally referred to Microraptoria. That said, the feathering in my reconstruction is more generic so as not to be too speculative. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:30, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing obviously wrong here (the toes are maybe a bit short) but I really have to question the value of restoring a dubious tooth taxon. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lengthened toes a little.
 * as for why I made this — I have a project in userspace where I’m putting an image of every dinosaur accompanied by its description paper. The images I’ve uploaded (and will upload) here are for that project, representing the dinosaurs that have no standalone images of themselves, whether life reconstructions or fossil images. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But wouldn't photos or drawings of the holotypes be much more appropriate for such a list? These life restorations have little to do with the description papers that you list. The list is interesting but quite unconventional – if you plan to eventually move the list into article main space, I suggest to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs as early as possible. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Holotypes would be better for such a list. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to move the list into mainspace yet. I also think life restorations look better. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Diuqin


New unenlagiine theropod from South America. Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Which other unenlagiine is this based on? The paper's skeletal (modified from Pamparaptor) gives it much longer arms. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pamparaptor is only known from a foot, so it's not exactly helpful here. Buitreraptor seems to be the only unenlagiine known from sufficiently complete arms, which are longer than what is depicted in this image. However, Austroraptor is typically reconstructed with much shorter arms (similar to here), but only a humerus is preserved. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The paper makes the point that its humeral anatomy is more similar to Austroraptor than smaller unenlagiines, but they did still choose to reconstruct it with longer arms. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This reconstruction is based mainly on Austroraptor. Please advise and I can adjust the arms, though I know there isn't much data. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See this figure: Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Arms lengthened. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Baalsaurus
This restoration of Baalsaurus mansillai is based on Gunnar Bivens’ Bonitasaura, a possible close relative. It incorporates beak tissue as hypothesized for Bonitasaura and a yellowish color similar to that hypothesized for Diplodocus as a speculative reflection of convergent evolution between diplodocoids and “antarctosaurid” titanosaurs. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Baalsaurus has a taller dentary than Bonitasaura, see its description . Also, if those are osteoderms, I'm not sure what other taxon has that form. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dentary deepened slightly. As for the osteoderms, they are based on the lognkosaur Mendozasaurus; Antarctosaurus, which is similar to Baalsaurus, has been recovered as a relative of lognkosaurs in the Jiangshanosaurus redescription, so it’s possible that “antarctosaurids” had similar osteoderms. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Bainoceratops
This restoration of Bainoceratops efremovi is based on Scott Hartman’s Protoceratops, since the two taxa have been considered to be potentially synonymous. Atlantis536 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Bashunosaurus
Ah, Bashunosaurus kaijiangensis. I remember writing its page after finding out that the Yuzhoulong paper cites its once-overlooked formal description. As such, I believe it’s fair to give it an illustration, based on Gunnar Bivens’ Camarasaurus. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Beipiaognathus
“Beipiaognathus jii” is a chimaeric taxon, and this reconstruction represents the real animal represented by the holotype without the artificially placed additions. It is reconstructed as a “compsognathid”-type coelurosaur based on Scott Hartman’s Compsognathus with coloration inspired by Sinosauropteryx. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can accept the tooth taxon restorations but I think this one goes too far for me. Cau never said that there was a real underlying basal coelurosaur specimen with additions; instead, his blog post (or its translation, anyway) suggests that the entire specimen is a hodge-podge of small pieces. He only commented about the affinities of the appendicular material, and in doing so identified pennaraptoran apomorphies. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, looks like I misremembered. Checking my sources again I found that Mickey Mortimer identified the arms as belonging to an Ornitholestes-like animal, and as such placed it at the base of Tyrannoraptora in his tree. I’ll edit the description to make that more clear. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Bissektipelta
Here is Bissektipelta archibaldi, an often overlooked ankylosaurid. This reconstruction is based on Gregory Paul’s Pinacosaurus with slight modifications, colored reddish based on Borealopelta. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the cervical half-rings would've been buried underneath skin. I think this style also creates the impression that the osteoderms were simpler than they were in real life; I would at least use outlines to suggest the presence of caputegulae. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Caputegulae and basement scale texture added. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Bonatitan
Here’s Bonatitan reigi, a tiny titanosaur. It is based on its close relative, the similarly tiny Ibirania. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The legs appear to be of unequal lengths. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Lengthened the left hindlimb to be equal to the right. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Borealosaurus
Borealosaurus wimani is an often overlooked sauropod that may be a titanosaur. Here it’s reconstructed as a basal titanosaur based on the Huabeisaurus by, another potential basal titanosaur from Asia, with small osteoderms because Tiamat valdecii proves that even the most basal, Andesaurus-grade titanosaurs had osteoderms. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Brachypodosaurus
Brachypodosaurus gravis is a mysterious Indian taxon that is all but ignored in the literature. The most recent review (done in 1977!) considered it a possible ankylosaur without comment. If this assignment is correct, it may be a parankylosaur, since India was part of Gondwana in the Cretaceous and parankylosaurs are likely the only ankylosaurs known from Gondwana. This hasn’t been explicitly suggested in the literature though, so this reconstruction, while based primarily on Stegouros, is generalized so that it could be seen as any type of ankylosaur. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be blunt here. This image is quite problematic for several reasons, and it raises concerns about much of the series you are creating. Per a recent published comment, the Brachypodosaurus specimen can not even be confidently regarded "as a humerus (or any other kind of bone)". As such, reconstructing it as an ankylosaur (especially given that even its ornithischian affinities are questioned)—and particularly a possible parankylosaur—blatantly crosses WP:NOR (from WP:OI, the principle of "no OR" is that "unpublished ideas or arguments" are not "illustrate[d] or introduce[d]" on Wikipedia). Your approach for this particular image ("based on Stegouros" but "generalized so that it could be seen as any type of ankylosaur") is also an example of the flaw of averages; by creating a "generalized" body plan, you are introducing yet another baseless original concept. Please keep in mind that not every dinosaur needs (or should have) a life restoration on Commons. Per COM:EV, uploaded media needs to be useful for education. An extremely speculative image like this is not. As has already been mentioned, the most useful and informative media for this kind of taxon would be a non-speculative representation of the actual fossil material. Quite frankly, if you want to assemble a gallery of images of controversial, obscure taxa like this—even for a personal userspace project—Wikipedia is not the place for it. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If that’s the case, I’ll just remove the images from my project. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Brasilotitan
Here’s Brasilotitan nemophagus, a square-jawed titanosaur. This depiction is based on my Baalsaurus above, since it may be a close relative, and as such exhibits similar coloration. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a strange approach to picking a color or pattern. Why should two distinct genera from geographically disparate locations, separated by more than 10 million years, have such a similar appearance? Of course, most viewers probably won't care or notice unless the two are shown together, but the logic is fallacious nonetheless. The same applies to other previous images: Bissektipelta (probable coloration for one nodosaurid does not equate similar colors for every other ankylosaur), Beipiaognathus (why should it be restored with a tail ring pattern, just because it's a "compsognathid"?), Agustinia (a rebbachisaurid) and Baalsaurus (a titanosaur!) (one specimen attributed to Diplodocus sp. has melanosomes suggestive of "ginger or yellow". Again, while the colors used for these genera are not inherently problematic, they should not be chosen under the current logic.), etc. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The colors of Baalsaurus are a speculative reflection of convergent evolution between “antarctosaurids” and diplodocids, similar to what did with his Plesiotylosaurus (giving the mosasaurine a Tylosaurus nepaeolicus-like countershading since the two are phylogenetically distant yet convergently similar). As for why I chose similar colors for distant relatives—it’s because the fossil dinosaurian color record is wildly incomplete, there’s not a lot to base color on (for example, we only have one color record for sauropodomorphs, coming from a diplodocid, so I thought it would be logical that at least diplodocoids and possibly some diplodocoid-mimics would look similar) Atlantis536 (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Bravasaurus
Here’s Bravasaurus arreirosorum, a relatively small titanosaur. Not much to say except it’s based on the skeletal reconstruction in its description (oh, and that I was the one who wrote its page) Atlantis536 (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Brohisaurus
“Brohisaurus kirthari” is a potential titanosauriform, which is why I reconstructed it after Gunnar Bivens’ Brachiosaurus. It also holds the dubious distinction of being the only validly named non-avian dinosaur from Pakistan (described in a peer-reviewed journal in an article stating it is a new genus and species with a diagnosis) Atlantis536 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Are the necks of his brachiosaurid skeletals not too vertical? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 08:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Works by Luca Mendieta
Found in Commons. As I see all fingers have nails, are there any other issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The proportions and poses of the ceratopsians seem very odd overall. The tip-toeing Monoclonius also has a massive lower jaw, while the others seem to have way too small skulls. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The frills also appear to be fully perpendicular to the spinal cord in several of the reconstructions, which would not have been the case. The frills are also just generally too small, especially the one on Xenoceratops. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * All these ceratopsids are incorrect. Bad body proportions, too thick tails, badly reconstructed frills, especially Medusaceratops or Xenoceratops. It seems to me that Glyptodon is the best made. Aventadoros (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Lokiceratops

 * Also, the jugal in Triceratops should be more triangular with the epijugal visible. These are the last issues to be corrected. Aventadoros (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll assume the Triceratops skull is based on a specimen, but I don't think the scales need to be added either. Seems like too much detail for the purpose the image fullfills. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Lokiceratops (UDL)


My version of Lokiceratops. Please review. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably has the same issue as the published skeletal with a too large skull? FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, too large skull for body. Looking at the musculature of Matt Dempsey's Triceratops, the forelimbs look too skinny.
 * Aventadoros (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Head smaller, thickened forelimbs. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Proceratosaur Updated Size Graphs + Skull Restoration
Hello, this is my first time adding a topic and I was told to upload here before adding, so I think I am doing this right.

Attached are restorations of Guanlong and some updated size comparisons of many proceratosaurs. I have already had approved/added some for Sinotyrannus and Yutyrannus, these are just the others.

I plan on editing the visual stuff for the Proceratosaurs as well, mainly the actual material of each aswell as updated restorations like crania reconstructions and more. SirBlameson (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * For me looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The Proceratosaurus size comparison also seems better than the one we have already. Some of us have been planning to expand that article, any chance of a life restoration without background unlike the one we have already? FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can likely find a good one, make one, or commission one SirBlameson (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaurs from Judith River Formation
Looking through the graphics by ABelov2014, I saw an image showing dinosaurs from the Judith River Formation and on it was a reconstruction of Medusaceratops. All those that currently rearrange Medusaceratops are incorrect and I think it can be replaced with this one. Do you have any comments? Or maybe some paleoartist might want to make this dinosaur?

Aventadoros (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Baiyinosaurus (Ddinodan)
Anatomy based on the published material, with unknown elements following Huayangosaurus (most similar anatomically to the known material) and other basal stegosaurs such as Tuojiangosaurus and Gigantspinosaurus. Ddinodan (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * For me looks good! Aventadoros (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If the skull is indeed based on Huayangosaurus and not Emausaurus (as the paper inexplicably does), then this should be good to go. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Baiyinosaurus (UDL)
Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The artwork is nice, but there’s already a drawing of it by Ddinodan. The people here seem to be prefer Ddinodan’s work whenever they have to choose between him or others’, so I doubt yours will get to be used. (Don’t let this discourage you, though; you can still draw other new discoveries as long as Ddinodan doesn’t get to them first.) 2001:4453:5A0:E500:85C4:BD28:2114:3E09 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What a strange comment to make. Both artists have different styles but typically produce high quality work regardless. There is no reason why multiple restorations of the same taxon should be dissuaded. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m fine with having multiple restorations of the same taxon (hence the “don’t be discouraged”) above, as long as one artist is not always preferred over others. 2001:4453:50B:D000:15B2:8DAA:A6B:CDD6 (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Does this Baiyinosaurus have dermal plates or spines on its back? I don't know what it is, but it looks very similar to the spikes from the tail, only smaller. Aventadoros (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Baiyinosaurus skeletal + skull
Skeletal and skull reconstructions for Baiyinosaurus. Unfortunately no measurements for the cranial material, but the vertebral measurements lined up well with the scale bars. Comments appreciated (especially on the skull, since the published one is...not usable). -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Skeletal for me looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Life reconstruction of enantiornithine birds feeding
Sometime ago I uploaded a reconstruction of feeding enantiornithine birds, but it doesn't have review. Does anyone have any comments? If no, I will put it into articles.

Aventadoros (talk) 08:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Restorations published in journals usually don't need review unless we suspect something is wrong with them. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right, but just to be sure, I wanted to post this reconstruction. However, in publications you get strange graphics like the Dornraptor reconstruction or the skeletal Lokiceratops having too big a skull. Aventadoros (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, should certainly be posted when something looks off. FunkMonk (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming Concavenator restoration
So, I've got nothing to share yet but I'm preparing a new illustration for Concavenator (lineart ready to go) which has been on standby for a very long time. I'm here to address some topics about this taxon before finishing this restoration in order to avoid controversy, for example, the ulnar bumps. I know that there have been several anatomical descriptions after its initial publication, however, the bumps remain inconclusive (at least from 2018 onwards). On the assumption that these were attachment sites for protofeathers, or quill structures like those of cassowaries, I think that something like Manusuchus's restoration would make sense, with a thin covering of feathers. On the contrary, if these were attachment sites of quill-like structures like those of basal dinosaurs, a mostly featherless restoration should work. Based on the insane combination of scaly patterns and protofeathers of Kulindadromeus though, I really don't know how far things can be restricted from each other... And I think that deserves a second thought, regardless of whether these taxa are from different groups, as it was once assumed that feathers belonged exclusively to Coelurosauria. One last issue is the elevation of the dorsal and caudal vertebrae. In the original description the sail-like structure is said to have no modern analogues or whatsoever, and the function is not entirely discussed. Fidalgo in her doctor thesis concludes that it represents a caudal hump similar to camels, based on myological reconstruction and overall comparative anatomy. Many paleoart depicts Concavenator with the sail unconnected, almost M-shaped. The included restoration by Raúl Martin in the original description depicts the taxon with a fully connected sail. I'd like to know what is the best move here and what to add into the reconstruction, Concavenator is quite a tricky taxon. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If we want to interpret the ulnar bumps as attachment sites for quills, they would have to be some pretty prominent quills, otherwise there wouldn't be need for strong attachment sites in the bone itself, and not ust downy fuzz. As for a connected hump, since there is already published precedence for it as you post, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One thing to keep in mind is that the high point of the hump is fully anterior to the sacrum. The sacral vertebrae are dorsally constrained by the curvature of the iliac crest, so the spinous processes did not exceed the height of the ilium.  A lot of reconstructions will place the high point in the hump directly over the hips, which is incorrect.  The humps of camels are anchored to spinous processes that are continuous in height (i.e. without any "dips" like in Concavenator) and so my personal opinion is that the life reconstruction should be restored without any speculative soft tissue structures between the two humps.  The source of this confusion probably stems from the fact that Concavenator has not yet received a full osteological description, and once that gets published, this controversy may be resolved.  Until such a time however, I think it would be more appropriate to avoid "filling in" the hump.
 * Regarding the integument, it's noteworthy that the holotype of Pelecanimimus preserves scale impressions but no feathers. However, as an ornithomimosaur, it is assumed that all ornithomimosaurs had feathers.  This has been suggested to be reflective of some taphonomic phenomenon that has failed to preserve feathers.  As far as I know, this hasn't been formally suggested in the literature, so it's hearsay at this point, so the presence of feathers is within reason (probable in my personal opinion), but not strictly necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Aight, the feather covering may not be that controversial after all. One thing that remains divided is the hump/sail. I'm still not convinced whether it should be connected or not and even though I think that it somehow would look more natural as a whole structure, I don't want to get my personal taste involved. Though the situation is tricky, maybe it's best to leave the sail (calling it sail and not hump) unconnected with a minimal amount of volume/tissue/skin in both dorsal and caudal elevations. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that it would look better as a single sail/hump, but I would generally err on the side of caution for restorations intended for WP specifically. If it's been formally suggested in the literature then its a coin toss I'd say. My main point was just to make sure that the placement of the sail is correct (i.e. it begins with the anterior dorsal vertebrae). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * On a side note, I'm not sure why an unfeathered ornithomimid head would be indicative of no feathers, when we have plenty of birds today with naked heads. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * And there's not a single bird alive that is completely featherless, not even fully-aquatic birds, which seems to indicate that feathers, once they evolve, are difficult or disadvantageous to lose. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Coahuilaceratops
Ok, the images in the newly published paper are under proper CC license. So I already uploaded the files to Commons. Now it would be convenient to review the images of the paper and those of the article. Levi bernardo (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * NT's ceratopsians are pretty spotty, but until someone else does a fully-body restoration, we might as well keep it. Everything else is good. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * All NT's ceratopsians are outdated and should be replaced by better imgs. I would add these new Coahuilaceratops imgs into article. Aventadoros (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As much as I appreciate NT's work generally, I don't think this one is good enough to go on the page. What is going on around the proximal end of the femur? It looks like the femur was dislocated. Skye McDavid (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there any new anatomical info about this taxon that makes older skull reconstructions outdated? Or is it just about stratigraphy and evolution? FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No description or anatomical revision, purely a stratigraphy and biogeography paper.  LittleLazyLass  (Talk | Contributions) 16:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Fona & Comptonatus
Fona is reconstructed using the available material and using Oryctodromeus for what's missing.

Comptonatus is reconstructed using the available material and using Mantellisaurus for what's missing.

Ddinodan (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Aventadoros (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not a huge fan of every single non-cerapod neornithishian being illustrated with the exact same feather/scale pattern as Kulindadromeus when they would definitely have had some variation but I can't say that's inaccurate on any individual reconstruction. Otherwise looks fine as far as I can tell Skye McDavid (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Harenadraco
Following the published skeletal. Ddinodan (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is it me or does the eye seem a bit too low in the socket? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The reconstruction follows the skeletal. I don't know what they used to figure the skull, but the skull isn't known from this animal to begin with.
 * Regardless, it isn't much lower than you would typically see in small dinosaurs like this. Ddinodan (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Fona (UDL)
Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In relation to Skye's comment above, I wonder if it would be a good idea to remove the protofeathers here to have a diversity of reconstructions. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 02:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Comptonatus (UDL)
Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the upper part of the beak have more keratin, like hadrosaurids had? Aventadoros (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)