Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive September 2007 - December 2007

Acrocantho
One of the first dinosaur I've drawn for wikipedia (Image:Acrocanthosaurus.jpg) and a long time favorite. Here's a new version. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 05:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great, especially the head. The left hand looks like a right hand though, maybe if you could accentuate the palm a bit, then it would appear that the thumb was on the far side. PS - I will be making more illustrations soon, just in the thick of writing my thesis now. Debivort 05:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Excelent, check the picture of the skull in the paper Sheep posted on the image sign up page, Its lower jaw looks a little deeper at the back,(It has a slight bulge). Steveoc 86 11:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Slightly updated. ArthurWeasley 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the skull and the rear of the lower jaw could genrally be a little taller still, I can't see any problems with the rest of it. Steveoc 86 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thickened the lower jaw a bit. Will make a close up drawing of the head. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 14:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better, I look forward to seeing it.:) Steveoc 86 15:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it, but like Debi said, the hand in the foreground looks like it is facing the wrong way (outwards). It should be facing inwards, it couldn't rotate the hand outwards that far. I'm no artist so I'm not sure if there is something (shading, etc) you can do to change that without redoing the hand. Sheep81 20:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, I mean the hand in the background. The left hand. Sheep81 20:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis
Mantellisaurus atherfieldensis, used to be Iguanodon atherfieldensis. Based of a proporitonally of a GSP skeletal. The final version will be a single image, but i've given a choice between a coloured and non-coloured version. Its very green, it can be toned down if you want. thanksSteveoc 86 18:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Can't see anything wrong there. I like both versions. The coloring is nice and subtile. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 18:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, no slight preference to one of them? :) Steveoc 86 19:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I prefer the color one--color is always a bit more eye-catching than grayscale. Dinoguy2 00:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks, ive uploaded the colour version. Steveoc 86 09:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow!!! Steve you're the best! "Felicitaciones":D --Dropzink 05:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dropzink, means alot :) Steveoc 86 13:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, how did you colourise it? Looks almost photo-realistic! Funkynusayri (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's coloured in Photoshop. A layer of colour is blended over the top of the drawing. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn, I'm a moron, I've had Photoshop for years without ever caring to use the layers, but always wanted to colourise with the brush tool without obliterating the contours of the drawing, so many thanks for the tip! Funkynusayri (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Test out the layer blending modes, I used multiply for that pic. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review:
These are from User:Marmelad and I moved his request for review to the appropriate image review page. I think those are simply vector versions of existing and already approved scale diagrams. Thoughts? ArthurWeasley 15:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Brachiosaurus_scale.svg
 * Image:Vraptor-scale.svg
 * Image:Human-brachiosaurus_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-triceratops_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-allosaurus_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-amphicoelias_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-eoraptor_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-euoplocephalus_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-heterodontosaurus_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-parasaurolophus_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-staurikosaurus_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Human-styracosaurus_size_comparison.svg
 * Image:Alosizes.svg
 * That was the original intention. After discovering some of the scale drawings were in fact not to scale, i fixed this by resizing the human. Compare e.g. Image:Human-styracosaurus size comparison.svg and Image:Human-styracosaurus size comparison.png. /Marmelad 16:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume they were compansating for the perspective on the styracosaurus. The new one looks better, but probably is now a little too big, however you've made the allosaurus way of, the image has perspective to it and you need to compensate for that, maybe in future we should use side views for scale diagrams?? Gregory Pauls scaled to aprox 12m comes out about under 3m tall to the hip, if that helps. I think the rest are fine. Steveoc 86 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The original png allosaurus image has actually never been approved by the WP:DINO for the reasons given by Steve so it would be nice if somebody could produce a new scale diagram from scratch as the current Allosaurus article does not have one. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 16:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember someone creating an image showing different speimins of allosaurus, including a 12m a 9m and big al?? what happened to this? Also, I think [Image:Brachiosaurus_scale.svg] is also a little large. Greg Pauls is closer to 6m tall to the top of back, yours is closer to 7m, thanks Steveoc 86 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, I remember now: Dropzink made this very nice one. This could go in the Allosaurus page I think. ArthurWeasley 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes thats the one. With a bit of tweeking that would be good. At the moment if you scale the image to the 12m bar, the 9m bar currently comes out at 10.5m, and the 7.5m comes out at 9m. If the big al one were scaled to the scale bar provided on the Hartman image, and the other sizes corrected it be fine. Steveoc 86 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that side views are better for scale diagrams. Otherwise it is quite difficult to get an appreciation of the size, especially since the images show outline only, which makes the perspective hard to judge. Working on a (properly scaled) vector version of Image:Alosizes(v2).png. /Marmelad 10:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * done. added it to the list. /Marmelad 16:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for that. Is it possible you could do a few things?
 * 1) Maybe tone down/ desaturate the colours as they are quite strong.
 * 2) Add, like the original had, captions saying which each one is, except I think leave out the name Saurophaganax (keep Epanterias) as I think I heard somwere that it didn’t get to 12m long.
 * 3) also could you shrink the animals slightly (not the scale bars, maybe around 7%) to compensate  for the pose they’re in. I think these measurements are taken along the vertebra, so if you were to imagine the animal straitened out they’d end up longer than the diagram says they are (eg the 12m would end up closer to 13m). This might be problematic though, as people might not understand why the scale bars don’t match the silhouettes exactly.
 * Sorry for being picky, :) Thanks. Steveoc 86 19:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, i much prefer comments so we can have the picture as good as possible. captions: simply forgot. colours: will look into new colours. scale bars: what about resizing scale bars (and numbers) as well, to indicate the size of the dinosaurs in the pose they are in? whatever we do we can add comments on the picture page to describe exactly what the pic shows. /Marmelad 07:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * this page gives nice color-blind friendly color sets. Debivort 07:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not shure about resizing the numbers as it might just confuse people, if it's ment to be a 12m individual and actually says smaller, people will try and change it. Maybe remove the bars and add a faint meter grid in the background (look at some of User:Dinoguy2). Just indicate a scale for the image as a whole and state the actual lengths by the names. It should hopefully avoid this problem, thanks Steveoc 86 08:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How about this? /Marmelad 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better, that looks great! :) Lets see what the others think. On Styracosaurus, If you visit Scoot Hartmans site theres a muscle lillustation of styracosaurus on his Bio page maybe if you trace that (with permision) for the diagram. thanks Steveoc 86 15:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Found another image to use, and made a new version of Image:Human-styracosaurus size comparison.svg. It was also suggested to me to remove the labels again from alosizes, and instead have them on the description page. This makes life easier for wikipedians using other languages. Thoughts? Also fixed my original allosaurus, Image:Human-allosaurus_size_comparison.svg /Marmelad 19:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * looks pretty good, the Styracosaurus tail looks a little stretched, try altering it using the Hartman one as reference, to help nail down the proportions. Steveoc 86 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So, is the brown/tan triple allo Image:Alosizes.svg the updated version of the triple allo scale chart? J. Spencer 03:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi J, great work on the allosaurus artical! It is if your happy with it? :) Do you think anything needs correcting/altering? Steveoc 86 11:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have gone with an 8.5 m allo for the middle allosaur, as that "seems" to be average, but 9 is right in there as well, so it's not a big deal either way. J. Spencer 14:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi all. I saw the comment on Marmelads talk page about the colour key. It was my recommendation to move the colour key from the image to the image page description. This way the colour key can still be included in the legends (with the potential to use wikilinks) and the image is usable by wikipedia projects in any language and using any script. /Lokal_Profil 23:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dracorex
Pity that the name might disappear soon ... Anyway, this is my tribute to J.K. Rowling. ArthurWeasley 05:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, a fitting tibute :) colouring is awsome, Looking at this, it seems the rip cage is slightly wider. is that due to the way the ribs are positioned? like it really beathing in deeply?? Probably minor.Steveoc 86 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the draco mount at the childrens' museum is a reconstruction. Actually, only the skull and a few postcranial bits are known. I've just made it a little slender than the average pachycephalosaur so that it looks like a juvenile version of pachy. ArthurWeasley 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I gess it's fine then :) Steveoc 86 20:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Acrocantho head
As promised. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From what i csn see it looks good, but my laptop screen is buggered, The back light is gone on both mine and my sisters computers (both og which were purchested at the esact same day are the same make, and both screw up on the same day!!) and can hardly see anything. From what i can see it matches the skull in the paper, good job. Steveoc 86 10:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job, it's basically the skull with skin and muscle draped over it huh? Sheep81 20:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Huayangosaurus
Another stegosaur. ArthurWeasley 06:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * my screen is still screwed, it looks like you've given it shoulder spikes, some of the illustrations show it and some don't, these two don't seen to have them  I'm not sure whether it is ment to have them??Steveoc 86 10:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just followed the idea that Kentrosaurus and the likes must have inherited their shoulder spikes from their ancestors, i.e, primitive forms such as Huayangosaurus and that other forms such as Stegosaurus have lost them. Another early stegosaur, Lexovisaurus definitely had side spikes (although their precision location is unclear), so why not Huayangosaurus? I think that whether Huayango lacked shoulder spikes or that they were simply not found with the fossil (after all, all the dorsal plates have not been found with the skeleton) is a matter of opinion. May be somebody could pop the question in the dino mailing list? ArthurWeasley 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * now its said that those spikes where on its hip rather than shoulder ! ! ! Irvin calicut (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Futalognkosaurus
It has been a while since I've done a sauropod. Here is one, based on the sketch in Calvo's paper. ArthurWeasley 06:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Congradulations on getting some of your work on Darren Naish tetapdod blog :), From what i can see this looks good, however I was looking at the paper and wondering could it bend its neck get into that possition? With that extreme upturn at the based of the neck. It would be nice to hear what people think? The image in the paper isn't the highest resolution so its difficult to see whats going on there. Steveoc 86 09:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, based on the illustration in the paper, while it does have that odd mamenchisaur-style upward kink at the base of the neck, the angle still should be smoothed out a bit, so it wouldn't form a hard corner or anything. Other than that it looks very good. The only thing is... based on yet-unpublished gossip from DinoForum... we may want to shy away from the ubiquitous iguana-style dermal spines. Apparently they were rather small and covered large swaths of the body in a 'spiny crocodile' fashion rather than forming a midline frill. Dinoguy2 01:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put the neck at a lower position to get a smoother transition at its base with the body and got rid of the dermal spines. I thought they were kind of fashionable as virtually almost all paleoartists (with the notable exception of Steve, here) were adding them lately! Seriously, where this idea come from? Is that from the iguana style keratinous spines of diplodocus popularized in WWD? Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was popularized by WWD, but they're known from Diplodocus fossils reported in the late '90s. The dermal spines really were there, it's just they were more extensive than usually depicted. The original fossils were just from the tail, so it appeared they formed an iguana-like ridge. Apparently, some new unpublished evidence indicates the spines covered a large portion of the body (and might have laid somewhat flat, I think? Can't find this discussion anymore...). They were present down the back, too. Just not only down the back. Dinoguy2 07:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The new version looks much better, Scott Hartman has commented on the dermal spines here .Steveoc 86 16:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Aaaaand, once again. Would it be possible to revise this one as well, to correct the front feet? Everybody takes the whole 'elephant feet' thing for granted, including me, until I'm thinking of it! Dinoguy2 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cerasinops
Skull is based on the Chinnery JVP paper. For the rest of the body I used Leptoceratops as a guideline but with slightly shorter forelimbs as described in the paper with a hint towards bipedalism. As for the Psittacosaurus style spines on the tail, that's just me. I could remove them if you want. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it! The subtle rainbow coloration of the spines is cool. I'd keep them, they're easy enough to remove if the Psittaco spines turn out to be displaced tendons or something. Dinoguy2 07:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Unenlagia
Not exactly sure how to represent this one from the rather few remains known from it. Something like a big teethy terror bird with big claws (a dromaeosaur right?). How is that? ArthurWeasley 05:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Love the colouring (yes my screens finally working), being a dromeosaur, maybe a slightly longer tail? That said who knows untill more is discrovered. Maybe make a note in the description saying that it is a fairly specualtive attempt. Maybe state what is not yet known, like the skull forearms and tail. On another note, Those feahters at the back of the head, lots of people draw them including me but is there any fossils that actually show them? (ps I don't actually have a problem with it, just curious), great work!Steveoc 86 09:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I suppose it could have a longer tail, but given it's oddly birdlike features it's not a deal-breaker... I kind of suspect unenlagiines achieved secondary flightlessness seperately from other dromaeosaurs, if the others were secondarily flightless. Unenlagiia nests very close to Rahonavis lately, after all, and that thing is so Archaeopteryx-like it may have had a shorter tail than your typical dromies. My guess is the proliferation of feather crests comes from Microraptor--some specimens of M. gui seem to have a blue jay-style crest. Great job, either way! Love the colors too. Dinoguy2 01:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys! ArthurWeasley 06:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Abelisaurus
Next. ArthurWeasley 06:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great, how much of the lower jaw is actually known? Alot of pics on the internet seem to show a really narrow lower jaw, like and some show a more normal jaw . Steveoc 86 17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Lower jaw isn't even known, those are complete inventions. Sheep81 20:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks fine to me. Very croc-like stylistically, which is not a bad thing for these kind of fairly basal theropods. Dinoguy2 08:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Allosaurus Jaws
deindent - yeah I'll stick with my opinion. Keep the english to a minimum, use latin names and metric, and put the key on the image. The image page key has problems that seem to illustrate my point - 1.8m=6ft? - Putting all that in the image, guarantees problems don't arise with every new key that has to be written. Debivort 04:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Has Marmelad been put off? The color seems perfectly reasonable on further review, but there really should be an in-diagram key.  I could pull it into Photoshop myself and add one, I suppose. J. Spencer 13:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like it, probably me bing really picky. Anyway I downloaded the file and put it into illustrator changed the colours a bit and added captions. How's this? Steveoc 86 20:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * AHH, Illustrator! is driving me crazy, Does anyone know how to crop an image in it?? Steveoc 86 20:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Croped, finally. Steveoc 86 21:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Steveoc - the current version I see looks like it needs some more cropping on the bottom and on the right. The command I use is Object > Crop Area > Make. de Bivort 23:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ok updated, I tried that before but when I uploaded the file, it was squashed for some reason. Steveoc 86 00:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very close, and I hate being the picky one, but there are a few things to revise. There are a couple of typos ("definative" = definitive, and a missing space at 32Feet) and inconsistencies in format (meters with no capital but Feet capitalized [I'd de-cap Feet], missing colons before the size for Big Al and the human).  Also, the genera and species should be italicized if possible.  If you're interested, the specimen number for Epanterias is AMNH 5767, and AMNH 680 for the largest definitive Allosaurus. I don't know the specimen number for the human. :) J. Spencer 14:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hows it now?, I'm slightly worried about Big Al, scaling Hartmans image to the scale bar comes out smaller than the 7.5m, a little under 7m (Its currently scaled to be about 7.5m) The artical says that it's about 8m? Also Illustrator is anying me. When I see the preview in wikipedia the italics arn't visible and the italic words are clashing with other parts of the sentance! Steveoc 86 17:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Big Al problem could be a case of measuring along the curve of the body versus a straight line, or something like that. If the italics aren't working, they can probably be left off for the time being.  Also, "definative" should be "definitive". J. Spencer 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.....I've left Al the 7.5m. Here WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive February & March 2007 Dinoguy spoke to Hartman, who apperently said Al as around that size. Also Illustrator was doing something weird like grouping the italic words and the normal words separately (for some reason?), so ive just got rid of italics. Steveoc 86 23:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll stick it in in a moment, 'cause I really like it. J. Spencer 02:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Herd of Maiasaura

 * Finally got the graphics tablet. Hopefully not many technical issues here, as it has already been vetted. Debivort 11:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, Thats beautiful, Thanks Debivort! Steveoc 86 11:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very impressive! J. Spencer 13:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's awesome, Deb. Good job! ArthurWeasley 04:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fourthed! Should also add to the Two Medicine Formation article when approved. Dinoguy2 08:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

New Lambeosaurus scale diagram

 * Okie-dokie. It shall go up. We could use a scale diagram for Acrocanthosaurus, too, couldn't we? J. Spencer 14:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * V1. Debivort 20:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good but why is the scale starting at 1 m? Shouln't the first tick be 0 m ? ArthurWeasley 23:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Duh, will fix that soon, along with the Lambeosaurus one. Debivort 23:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed in both images. Debivort 06:48, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Can't see any proplems. Steveoc 86 11:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Auroraceratops
Not sure if the fang like teeth should be visible or not in life. Thoughts? ArthurWeasley 06:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, though I don't have the paper to check anatomy (actually lost all my papers as my HD crashed last week... grr...). If you reckon the soft tissue beak and/or cheecks would cover the teeth, that's good enough for me. I've seen arguments (for and against) that both were very extensive. Is there any speculation on the function of the teeth? That would help decide as well. Dinoguy2 08:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't gain acces to the paper either. Theres some photos of the skull online but none are showing how wide the lower jaw is in relation to the upper jaw. This drawing shows them as being visable, maybe that's the best way to go. It would be interesting to see them as they're a fairly unique feature. We could always remove them in the future if someone says different. Steveoc 86 11:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am basing my drawing from this image of the skull. The jaws are in closed positions so I thought the gap between the lower and upper jaw at the front must have been covered somehow with the beak or cheeks and the fangs are not long enough to have been protruding out of the mouth, but I agree that this is not obvious and the representation pointed by Steve might be right. Other representations do not show the fangs. Anyway, it would be good if someone could get access to the original paper as there are some weird info in the Auroraceratops wiki article (it says the skull is 20 cm long but the animal was 6 meters!). ArthurWeasley 00:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I,ve added fangs to the little critter... ArthurWeasley 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks fine, I think. They're fairly subtle, as for the size, that is weird, The article says the type specimen is subadult, but 6m sound way to big to be a fully grown adult. Steveoc 86 11:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember having read somewhere that it was 2 meter long. That would be 6 feet, not 6 meter. ArthurWeasley 07:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Rapetosaurus
After Masiakasaurus, Majungasaurus, Rahonavis and Mahajangasuchus, I am continuing my Maevarano Formation series with this one. I've opted to show the nostrils further down the head instead of directly between the eyes. A perspective view for a change just to get a closer view on the head. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 02:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. One thing I’m thinking of is the height of the tail. Yours seems to be coming of quite low of the hips, this reconstruction seems to show it being more high up with the back more horizontal. Steveoc 86 11:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Put the tail higher up. ArthurWeasley 06:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The shadow looks narrower than I would expect in light of the skeletal. Debivort 06:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Broader shadow. ArthurWeasley 07:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's much better, thanks. Steveoc 86 11:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good overall, though one thing I would expect from this perspective is a more clear depiction of the... er... "duck bill" of Rapetosaurus. It has that odd, spoon-shaped expansion of the snout (seen in the top view of the skeletal) that doesn't seem to be present in the drawing. Maybe some altered shading could convey this? Dinoguy2 04:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated. ArthurWeasley 06:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Better! Edit: Oops, once again, always forget to look at sauropod feet. Same as Argentinosaurus. The front feet should be vertical comuns, no individual digits (except maybe some spikey/ridged pads), and no hooves or claws to be seen, as they lacked fingers. Dinoguy2 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated. ArthurWeasley 06:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This updated seem to have reverted your adjustements to the jaws. Circeus 01:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dang! Am I absent-minded. Corrected. ArthurWeasley 05:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Mahakala
The tiny dromie. ArthurWeasley 06:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The head and eye look amazing. Have you ever thought about softening your shadows? I assume they are added digitally, so it should be easy if you wanted to. Debivort 06:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I haven't been paying much attention on the shadows. Haven't figured out how to do it yet. Here is the first attempt. ArthurWeasley 07:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the shadow style is a minor aspect. This shadow is actually quite nice because it looks really consistent with the 3d perspective of the animal. It's just the sharp edges make it look like it's lit by a spotlight, rather than a diffuse light source like the sky. As for this version - hmm. Looks like you did that by hand. What program are you using? If it's photoshop, the easiest trick is to make a layer under the critter, put your shadow down, and then use the Gaussian Blur filter to soften its edges. But if you have to do it by hand, it might not be worth the extra work. Debivort 08:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the head and eye look fantastic, this is one of my favourates, I especally like the wings. I can't find any info on this animal as it's so new. Dinodata hinted that is small.....which isn't that helpful. :) Steveoc 86 11:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's about 70 cm long, or 28 inches. J. Spencer 21:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Out of all the places I looked for any info, images on the net(nothing but human skulls and buddas) google scholar, i don't think to check the wikipedia artical, were theres a link to the pdf (bashes head against table) slilly me :). Steveoc 86 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I based my reconstruction from the description in the original Science paper. The remains are fragmentary, the exact shape of the skull is not known but the article says that this little guy was a basal dromaeosaur, so had general dromie features such as long tail and feathers. The eyes were somewhat proportionally larger than for the normal dromie, and the tibia was longer than the femur. ArthurWeasley 23:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen any skeletals, but I doubt enough is known to say anything other than "generic basal paravian". In that sense, this looks absolutely perfect. Well done!
 * One thing I think is a slightly odd choice, not really an error, is the coloration. Both this and Velociraptor have a similar bright green coloration, which would be kind of unexpected for their arid environment. On the one hand it's kinda cool, almost evokes arid parts of Australia that still have colorful lorikeets and stuff... and you can always explain it as seasonal display plumage. But if you ever decide to do species from that time/place known more for hunkering down and nesting, like oviraptorids, something with more earth tones would probably be more realistic. Dinoguy2 04:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

One further thing I just realized--while this hasn't been a problem due to perspective on your other dromies, the stretched-wing posterior perspective here makes the presence of tertials an issue. Basal birds and other paravians lacked well-developed or long tertial feathers on the humerus. This created a prnounced gap between the proximal end of the wing (ending at the 'elbow') and the body. Would this be difficult to adjust for Mahakala? Dinoguy2 04:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. Will work on it. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaellynasaura
The small ornithopod from the Antarctica. Took me some time to spell it correctly! Also figured out how to smooth the shadow (Thanks Deb!) ArthurWeasley 20:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm in awe of the sheer amount of great art work you produce, and the variety. Any way, isn't Leaellynasaura only really known from a skull and few other bits, I gess your image is fine, it seems to have normal ornithopod proportions. Great :)Steveoc 86 22:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep that's right. Thanks for the nice compliment :) ArthurWeasley 23:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (*Australia ;), but still, very cool! One thing that seems a bit odd is the pose of the foreground foot. It's more on its tip-toes, with the ankle more flexed, but the knee looks like it's on the same plane as the non-flexed leg, making one leg seem longer than the other... Dinoguy2 05:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Australia was part of Antarctica at that time ;). Slightly adjusted the length of the leg in the background to match the one in the front. ArthurWeasley 06:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool, looks fine now. Dinoguy2 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus
I noticed that Spindler's Argentinosaurus was deleted for some reason so I made a possible replacement. Seeing all these reconstructions and mounts on the web, I did not realize that most of the bones of this animal including the skull are actually unknown! The reconstruction here is therefore highly hypothetical. ArthurWeasley 06:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good, I think that most titanosaurs have slightly deeper rib cages, as for the rest of it seems fine, It’s annoying that many of Argentinosaurus closest relatives are also so fragmentary. What would be useful is if the article could have the skeletal in the 2006 Amphicoelias paper, if somehow we could get permission to use it, so that people can understand why many of the reconstructions differ. That said there’s a link to the free pdf in the article. Steveoc 86 11:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the belly seems a bit shallow, otherwise looks really cool! Only other problem is the front feet--you've given it claws, but titanosaurs had zero manual digits. They walked on metacarpal stumps. They didn't even retain the thumb claw as some other neosauropods did, if I recall correctly. Here's an excellent overview of sauropod feet, probably the single most misrepresented aspect of dinosaur anatomy there is ;) . Dinoguy2 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I'm currently altering my bruhathkayosaurus, removing all traces of toes from the hands. Did Darren Naish ever do a follow up talking about the feet? Would there be toes or claws on the feet? Steveoc 86 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he's never done a follow-up on feet, unfortunately. Does anybody have access to those Tracy Ford or GSP articles he mentioned? Dinoguy2 13:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated! ArthurWeasley 06:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bellusaurus or Klamelisaurus
New style - not one I'm likely to stick with though - this was done all digitally. Moveover, all done in Illustrator, except the drop shadow, and fixing the front leg fingers, which were done in photoshop. Quicker to make sketches this way, but much slower to color.

In terms of the reconstruction I mostly went off of this skeletal and ignored this drawing which seems to have lots of problems pointed out with sauropods here, like sharply angled neck base, fingers, legs too small and spindly etc. V1.

At this point neither Bellusaurus nor Klamelisaurus has an illustration. Where should this one go? de Bivort 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that image was innaccurate? The only taxonomic references I can find place it in Euhelopodidae or near Mamenchisaurus (or both). That group is known for it's totally freaky-long necks that are sharply angled upwards. See most recent skeletal here. If any sauropods were high browsers, it was them (one of my favorite GSP drawings was the Omeisaurus rearing up to feed on tall conifers with long spindly necks. The werido up-kink in mamenchi tails gives me a hunch this might be close to the truth...). However, other Bellusaurus reconstructions I'm finding make it rather short and stocky, as your is, but they look kinda old and these proportions might be due to its being a juvi. If you stick with this depiction, therefore, I'd put it on Bellusaurus, not Klameli. Also, it should still have the thumb claw (only lost in most titanosaurs). Dinoguy2 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess Bellusaurus makes the most sense anyways, since I was basing this on the Bellu skeletal. de Bivort 05:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all sure it was innaccurate. It just looks bizzare for the reasons I gave above, one of which you have addressed. I'll fix the thumb claw shortly. de Bivort 00:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I’m not sure what to say about accuracy as the only skeletal ref I have seen is the one linked above. Looking at the skeletal, it looks like the tail isn't complete, it might be a bit longer, but I’m not sure. One other general thing, one foot (the closest one) looks taller than the other, maybe this could be shortened slightly to match the other. Steveoc 86 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm - you mean the last, i.e. 3rd "segment" of the left hind leg, right? I'll fix that and lengthen the tail in a new version. de Bivort 20:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yep, (as in the below the ankle), the rear legs metatarsals seem longer on one side compared to the other. fairly minor. thanks Steveoc 86 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Revised version - calibrated ankles and longer tail. de Bivort 00:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe a little more calibration on the ankles :) Just to clarify . Still can't find much on this animal, probably won't help much but here's another view of a skeletal mount . Steveoc 86 15:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * More calibration. de Bivort 06:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Steveoc 86 11:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

While it's still easy to tweak, how does this outline look for Klamelisaurus?de Bivort 21:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Still pretty rough, but in general it looks ok to me. The only thing is I don't think (could be wrong here) large sauropods would have been able to walk with two legs off the ground at the same time. Dinoguy2 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Brachyceratops
Based on Scott H.'s skeletal. ArthurWeasley 06:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m struggling to find any accuracy problems, on the subject of claws I remembered that Hartman said something about this over at dinoforum......

'' No dinosaur had more than 3 claws on the hand (neither do crocs, for that matter), digits 4 and 5 never have claws. Sauropods should only have one thumb claw on their hands.'' .So you probably have to remove a few claws but overall good job! Steveoc 86 13:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Updated with a tweak. ArthurWeasley 05:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Rinconsaurus
Based of, mine looks shorter in the body than the ref, it's acually not, it's due to the legs being placed under the body rather then being more spread out. Also I've based the skull of rapetosaurus. Steveoc 86 15:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a beautiful, beautiful image, Steve. I worry about the head. The skull shown on Rapetosaurus is more than twice as long as it is deep, even with its mouth partially open. Your Rinconsaurus head appears to show a skull that is more than half as deep as it is long, even with the mouth mostly closed. Of course, the head isn't known anyway, but why write in the image description page that the head is based on Rapetosaurus if the proportions are different? Of course, the head shown in the original description shows a generalized sauropod head, as it's not known anyway. The body proportions don't worry me too much: the skeletal is roughly 11:8:15 (neck:body:tail), while your image has about a 9.5:8:12 ratio, close enough that I'm not too concerned (there's no complete skeleton anyway, and as you state, the different pose will account for some of that difference). As always with my comments, please do not make any adjustments until someone else has weighed in here. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :), i'll check the proportions when other people comment, it was abit rushed, i'm annoyingly busy with uni work. I think the necks a tad long, if we assume the siluett is correct. I wasn't sure what to do with the skull, I'll happily change it if someone suggests a different skull. I was looking at the Rapetosaurus reconstuction here for the skull, it seemed slightly deeper. But i'll change that. Mine also has an extenal nose, like the one on this diplodicus, shown here which adds abit to the hight, but I've probably done it too much. Steveoc 86 21:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update, for comparison Steveoc 86 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, that works for me. I don't know how anyone else feels (and I wish someone else would weigh in; I always feel insecure weighing in like I'm an expert or something when I'm clearly not), but nothing else really screams out as inaccurate to me, and it truly is a great image. So with those caveats in mind, I guess it should go up. Firsfron of Ronchester  08:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I can always alter it if needs be. :) Steveoc 86 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Gasparinisaura
This is based on Jaime Headden's skeletal. ArthurWeasley 05:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * looks great, seems mostly fine. I'm wondering about the hip, it looks slightly more massive in the Headden image. Steveoc 86 11:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Made the hip slightly more massive. Hope I understood corretly what you meant? Cheers. ArthurWeasley 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yep thats what I ment, thanks Steveoc 86 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the pictures good, but the stance could be better. It looks like it's just standing there, slightly annoyed that it's a bright colour, with a scowl on its face and its hand just hanging there... Is it possible to make it more "lively"? Maybe a smile (Seriously dude, that dino looks grumpy!) :) Cheers, Spawn Man 05:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I know most people think ornithischians had cheeks of some kind, but facial expressions might be overdoing it juuuust a bit ;) eriously thoug,h a lot of hypsies had a big bone curved back over the top of the eye, which probably made them look "pissed off" in life, kinda the way dolphins look like they're "smiling" because of the way their skulls are shaped. Dinoguy2 06:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Archaeoceratops
Also based on Headden's skeletal. Gave it a little more cheek though... ArthurWeasley 05:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine. great Work. Steveoc 86 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Pantydraco
The sauropodomorph with the infamous name... Based on Yates original paper (2003) but in bipedal pose ArthurWeasley 05:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks really cool! Since I don't have refs to check, what's known of the skull, hands, and tail? These look very different from you Thecodontosaurus illustration, which strikes me as odd considering they're so closely related. Dinoguy2 06:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can send you the ref if you want. Just email me and I'll reply to you. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 20:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Deinonychus
The carnivorous dramaeosaur. The image is done by me. Scorpionman 03:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a few small anatomical problems--the knee is overextended, for example, and the size and shape of the toe claws seems a little off. Stlyistically, it looks a little rough--you might want to define the animal a little more with darker shading and more contrast, at this point it looks more like a rough sketch than a finished drawing. Then there's the whole feather issue, which is pointless to get into again: there's overwhelming evidence that dromaeosaurs were "birds", not "reptiles" in laymans terms, and the distinct possibility that they were birds in the technical sense as well. Depicting a naked, scaley Deinonychus is about as intuitive as depicting a naked, scaly Titanis. Dinoguy2 04:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * So, they were feathered birds, not feathered reptiles! Yes of course, if that is what they were then you may simply find a different image with feathers. Scorpionman 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The skull looks quite good, but overall I agree with all of Dinoguy's statments. It would also be nice to see the rest of the tail. I'm a little confused though, there are already two excelent and accurate reconstuctions in the Deinonychus artical. If you have a problem with feathered dinos maybe you would be better off trying some non-feathered ones, drawing some images for the articals lacking illustration. Steveoc 86 19:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a nice image, but it appears to violate guideline #4 listed above: Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements. Example: Nomingia should not be depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered. Similarly, Ceratosaurus should not be depicted with feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it was fully scaled. Since fossil evidence indicates that the Dromaeosauridae were feathered, a featherless depiction won't work in the article, except as a historic depiction of how we used to depict these animals. But since this isn't a historic image, even that is unnecessary. Firsfron of Ronchester  20:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Carnotaurus
I always liked that one. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Love the colouration! A minor thing, maybe the shin is a bit long. This is GSP's form 2000, the reat seems good to me Steveoc 86 12:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm looking at this and unless there's a perspective trick I can't see, the too legs look to me like they are built completely differently. Circeus 02:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shorten the front shin. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 05:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats better, thanks. Steveoc 86 10:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't fix the problem I saw at all. What I see is that for his left knee to be invisible as it is, it has to be flexed (right word, I hope) so much that he would be very visibly leaning to the left (quite possibly too much for him to still be standing at all!), and the rest of his body position doesn't agree with that at all (it even seems to be actually leaning slightly to the right!). Do I make any sense? Circeus 15:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this what you mean? Steveoc 86 17:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it shows the problem well. Circeus 00:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good overall, but I'd also say, compared to the skeletal, the face and torso look a bit too elongated. They should be shorter and rounder... Dinoguy2 01:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, it seems I have to redo this one :P. ArthurWeasley 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't the arms too long and thin? Funkynusayri (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yamaceratops
Continuing my series on the basal ceratopsians. ArthurWeasley 06:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems fine, it's mainly known from the skull, which yours seems to match. Steveoc 86 12:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yama hama! (sorry). Looks great, though would the teeth have protruded from both the bony and or keratin part of the beak in life? Don't have any refs on me. Dinoguy2 06:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, may be not. I've hidden the teeth...Ref free to download here ArthurWeasley 05:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Microraptors
Lets resolve the Microraptor image debate once and for all shall we. Nubula 10:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Microraptor.JPG


 * No comment on the merits of the image itself yet, Nubula, but since this is a Fair Use image, I've removed the image from this page (Fair Use images can only be used in article space), and replaced it with a link to the actual image. Sorry for the inconvenience. Firsfron of Ronchester  10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that screenshots from TV and movies can't be used outside articles discussing those movies. I think the Wiki policy is pretty clear on that point, but Nubula believes otherwise. The article Non-free content states:
 * "5. Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television."
 * Discussion of Microraptor the animal is very plainly not a discussion of the television show Prehistoric Park. Furthermore, the CGI images would not pass muster on image review. For one, all 4 wings are clearly far too small, at least half the size of the wings of the real animal. Simply comapre with the fossil photo in the taxobox. The hind wings do not even extend onto the feet/metatarsals, maybe the most distinctive characteristic of Microraptor. Dinoguy2 12:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The use of images from TV and movies outside articles discussing those movies happens frequently on Wikipedia all the time and your a liar if you say otherwise. As for the inaccurate wing size, if you had said that in the first place I won't have argued this point with you. Nubula 13:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It does happen frequently, and this should be fixed where possible. Images are added to the wrong section by people who don't know better. And I did say the image was innacurate, which I thought was the reason you posted it here. Dinoguy2 14:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Lamplughsaura
The new sauropodomorph from India. ArthurWeasley 05:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Great work AW! Don't have the ref to check anatomy, but I don't see any general problems. I reallyl ike the pose, it gives a great sense of motion and conveys the partial quadrupedality really well. Dinoguy2 11:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) ArthurWeasley 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yinlong
Continuing the series of basal ceratopsians. ArthurWeasley 07:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks great, aparently its known from a completish sketeton, but there are few images online. Does the drescription show any better images? Steveoc 86 11:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I went to the same place for the description . It has an image of the skull. ArthurWeasley 18:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Allosaur quarries
A bit different from our usual diagrams, but I realized that the Allosaurus refers to several quarries, and I thought it might be good to have a map. So, I took a state map from Commons and used another map to plot the localities, and came up with this. What do you think? J. Spencer 02:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think keeping the text separate (i.e. on the image talk page for reference) is better b/c it allows for the image to be re-used without having to crop the text (language switch is the most frequent causer of re-drawing between projects).
 * Just an idea. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if that will be relevant, but is it possible to add colors for the formations or something like that? or A cropped part of Image:North america terrain 2003 map.jpg?
 * Circeus 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's all one formation, the Morrison Formation (it's a big formation, also hitting Oklahoma, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Montana at least). As for the language, what if I was to also upload a second, blank-language version for other projects? With the numbered points, I think that having a legend on the image itself helps (although it's certainly not very necessary when you have to click on the image to read it). J. Spencer 04:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a great map, but is there a way to combine this map with a range map, similar to what WP:BIRDS has on, say, American Goldfinch? Obviously, the range would just be dots on the map, instead of a full range, but you could show Allosaurus fossil locations in one color, with important quarries with multiple finds in another. Workable? Firsfron of Ronchester  04:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The finds are a bit "granular", but I could try. I could also fake it with an overlay of the Morrison itself, I think.  It wouldn't be the *full* range, since we'd be missing the Portuguese sites and wherever else it hung its figurative hat. J. Spencer 05:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "granular"? Do you think it would be hard to see them on the map? If that's the case, please feel free to ignore my suggestion. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  05:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are two revised versions, both with the Morrison Formation and other quarries added. On one of them I took off the bottom caption. J. Spencer 21:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the one on the right would be great to have in the article. Go for itcheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer the second one, too. Looks nice. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  09:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Scale diagram by suborder
As requested on the Lambeosaurus talk page, here's a diagram for the largest in each of the four suborders we're using. I spaced them out by 2 meters each to keep them all from being right on top of each other--hopefully the even spacing will help in length comparison. I noticed the cited overall length for spino and the dal Saso skull length weren't matching up, so I swapped Steve's head onto Arthur's body ;) I have Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus on hidden layers if either of those would be preferable to Amphi (scaling to the argentinosaur tibia made it significantly smaller than the puertasaur when using Steve's Bruhathkay drawing for both). Dinoguy2 03:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I like that; it's like the scaled bestiaries that appear at the beginning of the David Lambert 1980s dinosaur books. Can a Triceratops be snuck in, or would that crowd the Stegosaurus? J. Spencer 04:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the similarity to the Lambert '80s (and '90s) books. Also: this is by suborder: are we abandoning Benton? Firsfron of Ronchester  04:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This does follow Benton, I thought for now we were sticking with his suborders...? The only addition without Benton would be Triceratops (which I also have in there as a hidden layer, but it seemed a tad redundant as it's the same length as Stegosaurus. I could always do another one with Benton's infraorders (or even traditonal infraorders, though that would pose a problem for several major theropod groups, many of which have not been assigned to any infraorder), if you guys think it would be useful. Dinoguy2 05:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarify: Yes, it follows Benton, my question was for J. He requested Triceratops (in Ceratopsia, which isn't a suborder in Benton). I understood why there were just four dinosaurs in the scale: the largest members of each of the suborders that we're using. Firsfron of Ronchester  05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good, isn’t the estimate for Amphi about 9m tall yours seems a little over 8m. About stegosaurus, does anyone know were the un-sourced 12m length stated in the article comes from?
 * Not that your using it, but what measurements are you scaling Puertasaurus to? also I wouldn’t use my Bruhath for Puertasaurus. I recon it had quite a long neck, maybe around the 10-11m range, its cervical 9 (out of about 13???) measures over a meter long. I’m not 100% sure (as I haven’t read the paper describing argentinosaurus) but I think the dorsal centrums of Puertasaurus seem to be similar in size to argentinosaurus, just a little wider (but shorter in length ~40cm, apparently Arg centrums are about 45 to 50cm long). So Puertasaurus might of have a dorsal region similar in size to argentinosaurus (maybe shorter but more massive). But i'm not sure? . Steveoc 86 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense--I wasn't sure how to scale these two, since I was going from life restorations using a 'generic' titanosaur as in Carpenter's Amphi paper (ie, fairly short necks), and scaling Argentin based on the tibia, which isn't known for Puerta (right?). Anyway, I figure there's really no good reason not to use Amphi as the largest sauropod at this point. As for Amphi's height, I realized last night I scaled it too short--it was falling pretty short of the listed 60m when the tail curve is compensated for. The rescaled version is a tad over 9m in height. I'll upload the new version shortly. Dinoguy2 01:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Massospondylus
Here's the bipedal version of Massospondylus. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 02:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the crawling baby. Isn't it cute? Cheers. ArthurWeasley 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's adorable. No comment on accuracy. The 2005 and 2007 studies on juveniles completely conflict with one another anyway, so until there's a third paper, I think anything goes. Firsfron of Ronchester  04:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Largest ornithopods
As requested on Dinosaur size. The hadrosaurines are all scaled based on Arthur's illustration of Edmontosaurus, let me know if there are any proportional problems. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Epidendrosaurus
Worked a bit on the article earlier today and thought it needed an image, so I went back to the raw files for a larger Epi scene I did and whipped this up. I've run it past paleo types before and the only objection has been the lack of feathers on the digits. As the specimen is pretty poorly preserved and the hands hyper-modified I had taken the liberty of making it more aye-aye like in that respect. Any opinions? I do think a regular lateral image would be good to have as well. Dinoguy2 22:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As you know, one my favorite image on dA. ;) ArthurWeasley 23:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lovely painting. I'm not an expert in the subject, but seeing how close it is to birds it should probably have feathers on the arms and hands. Its seems to me that the rest of it is so bird like, why wouldn't it have some form of wing. I like this guys opinion . I worried however that adding wigs will ruin the picture. Steveoc 86 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Naah, one of those 19th century wigs would make it awesome. Circeus 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL oops.....I ment WINGS ;) .......although....wigs would be interesting.Steveoc 86 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Little haphazard, but I slapped some wings on there. I don't know if anybody's seen Dan Bensen's colugo-like epi, but I took my cue from that--a bit more fuzzy than modern primaries and secondaries. Dinoguy2 01:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. Steveoc 86 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Beautiful, but is it supposed to have tertials as well? ArthurWeasley 03:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No tertials--hard to tell from the perspective but the humerus is flush with the body, hidden under the body feathers (easier to see without the wing feathers, heh). EDIT: Actually I can see why it would appear to have tertials... Will modify a bit to round out the proximal edge of the secondaries. Dinoguy2 04:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Massospondylus skull diagram
Masso skull diagram...its quite simplistic. There seem to be other names for some of the holes..if you'd prefer different names I'll change them. Mine are based of the names on Hartmans site. Its based of rather than this, which is aparently out of date. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, good work! Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * thanks, + updated. All thats different is that i've added a texture to the image it heps blend in the shading better. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's awesome! Don't forget the mandibular fenestra in the lower jaw though. Sheep81 (talk) 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks :), updated.Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Steve, that's incredible. All I can say is thanks. You've outdone yourself. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  03:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it totally is. Also, "nares" is plural... singular is "naris". And you might want to change it to "external naris" as technically that is the full name of that opening, if you're being nitpicky. Sheep81 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys :), updated Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking great! One more thing the reviewer requested is to add the supratemporal fenestra on top of the skull. Two ways you can do this. #1 (hard) is draw a second view from the top of the skull. I have an image I can scan for this purpose if you want (or you can see it yourself if you have The Dinosauria II... it's Figure 12.4F). #2 (easy), just draw a line to where the stf would be if you could see it from this angle. It should be right at the crook of the postorbital (the Y-shaped bone behind the orbit). The bone you can see sticking up from the crook is the parietal, which was the inner boundary of the stf... so your line should go in between those two bones if you do it this way. Sheep81 (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the second view idea is better, drawing a line to that area doesn't make it obvious that there is a hole present. I don't have the The Dinosauria II sadly so the scan will be apreachated. thanks Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go: . I took the liberty of labeling all the bones and openings for you, hopefully that helps. It's not the best image ever. You'll notice the two sides aren't exactly symmetrical! You can try to make both sides look like the side with the labels, it's clearer. Just to the left of the "s" in "stf" is a random crack in the parietal, which loops around the inside of the fenestra, you can leave that crack out. Thanks!! Sheep81 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ..i'm not 100% shure of witch cracks your specking of is it possible you could some how hi-light the lines you don't want to see. thanks Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How this(it will eventually be fliped.)....have I chosen the correct lines? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Basal Ceratopsian poster
Probably not useful for wikipedia but just want to show you the result of a personal project I was working on: 18 basal ceratopsian species drawn to scale and crammed into one image! They are almost all here ;) Well, not really, I've avoided the more obscure genera such as Xuanhuaceratops, Lamaceratops, the dubious ones such as Asiaceratops, Breviceratops and Kulceratops, those that are known by very fragmentary materials such as Turanoceratops, and of course the tooth taxa such as Craspedodon. I also put down only two of the ~12 species of Psittacosaurus. The coronosauria next, or may be the dromies, haven't decided yet... Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * WOW! great... Want a (minor) suggestion? Tighten up the two text lines under each dino - in some (near the top esp) - the whitespace between the text lines and between the dinos is about equal so the text doesn't pair up visually with the corresponding dinosaur that tightly. Now ... do you have high res versions that we can print out poster-size? de Bivort 07:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it would be great at Ceratopsia, similarly to the Hadro poster. de Bivort 07:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Brilliant!!! I don't know what to say other than to agree with debivort, I want a poster!! Sheep81 (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, tightened up the text. For a poster, just send me an email. Cheers ArthurWeasley (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats Insane! Great work! You should put it up for a featured picture!Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's very impressive! One question: isn't the nasal horn of Montanoceratops actually a misplaced jugal or something? J. Spencer (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Might be, but I did not find any citation to back this up (except on this excellent site called Thescelosaurus!) so I used the traditional representation. ArthurWeasley (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I had to go back and check more thoroughly. No one goes right out and says it, apparently, but if you read descriptions of recently-named North American basal neoceratopsians carefully (Prenoceratops and Cerasinops), and you know what to look for, it's out there.  The Prenoceratops description notes that no true nasal horn core is known for North American basal neoceratopsians, the Cerasinops article directly states that the nasal of Montanoceratops is unknown, and, using the LP version of Magical Mystery Tour with the  booklet, turning the page with the photo taken from the dining-room cutscene 90 degrees and squinting at it 10 feet away, a skull appears, therefore Paul is dead er, Montanoceratops is not known to have had a nasal horn. J. Spencer (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No nasal horn then! How about a nasal bump? ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you'd like; they've all got some kind of nasal rugosity. J. Spencer (talk) 23:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would also be cool if you uploaded the individual images so we could put them in their respective articles! Sheep81 (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've uploaded all those that do not have an illustration yet. Which ones are missing? ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So far I have been unable to find Zuniceratops, Hongshanosaurus, either species of Psittacosaurus in the poster, Udanoceratops, or Prenoceratops. I just tried to guess the filenames though, it could be that they are there under names I didn't guess. Sheep81 (talk) 08:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you get the poster? Zuniceratops, Prenoceratops, Udanoceratops and Psittacosaurus have already images in taxobox so no need to overcrowd the articles, but yes I'll upload Hongshanosaurus. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded Hongshanosaurus but it turns out the article already has an image there as well. ArthurWeasley (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hongshanosaurus has only a head shot so a full body picture would be welcome :) Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's only known by its skull. The body reconstruction is based on closely related genera (i.e.: Psittacosaurus). ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah I got the poster, looks great! Those articles are all pretty small right now but if anyone ever gets around to expanding them they'll need pictures so I say upload them anyway. Unless you have other plans (ie, sale) for them of course. Up to you! Sheep81 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I will upload them but later. Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 06:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Bruhathkayosaurus silhouette
Sorry this isn't a new pic but this has been bugging me for some time. I'd like to swap the current image for this one. I feel that the current one is problematic, having such a fleshed out reconstruction for such a poorly known animal. It presents a bias in the way people perceive it so I’d rather show an image more like this one. The femur and hip bone won’t be visable in the final version it just so you can see what going on in there. The tibia is traced of the actual description image which ain’t great. The problem is the only other bone I have seen is the hip which looks so bazaar that I can’t make out what the hell is going on. Here’s the image I found online. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are those the actual images from the article? Holy crap they look like they were drawn on a cocktail napkin! Sheep81 (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep aparently they are, see here . When I drew the origanal I hadn't seen these I just went of the mesurments suggested at the DML, but looking at them it really makes me worried about the reconstuction. The other option is just to ignore the bones in the silhouette drawing so it is just a silhouette. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think that is a really good idea to have the bones in there. Maybe just scale up some generic titanosaur bones, they're small enough on that image where you're not going to be able to pick out too many specific features anyway. Sheep81 (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with that is the remains include the ilium which is aparently only 1.2m long Which would be very small for a titanosaur of that size however the femur is apraently 75cm across! . I'm thinking it must be a chimera, aparently the radius is known. How could the authors classify it as a theropod if a ~2m radius existed, it must be small (ie theropod sized). If so it would be nice to know whcih parts were classifed to what. Does any one have the paper describing the animal or  Chatterjee, S. (1995). "The last dinosaurs of India". The Dinosaur Report, 1995, because it would be really useful to see if all the elements were re-classifed as titanosaur or just some parts. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Alioramus skull Diagram and Skeletal
As requested by Sheep. The known parts of the skull are represented in grey. Update, added skeletal, I scaled GCPs gorgosaurus so the skull length matched the skull length of Alioramus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great! The only quibble I'll bring up is the use of known parts in gray, unknown parts in white--isn't is usually the other way around? For some reason I asscociate grayed-out with speculative. I know GSP uses "gray" to show known parts in some of his stuff, but those are the pencil drawings and it's more a matter of shaded-with-detail vs unshaded outline.Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, flipped grey areas. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both of them look great! Only thing I can think of is to gray out most of the teeth... look closely at the image I sent you and you can see that most of the teeth were missing. Oh, and if you could add a person to the full-body image to make it like one of our scale diagrams, that would be awesome too. Sheep81 (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. One thing I notaced when doing them is that the artical says that the skull is approximately 45cm long, however the diagrams you sent me suggest larger, closer to ~65cm (assuming the scale bars are correct). It might be minor, but the skeletal is scaled to an tyrannosaur with a ~65cm skull, one with a 45cm skull would obviosly be considerably smaller. Mortimers site says ~700 mm, not hure were its from...any thoughts? Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Kurzanov originally restored it too long, the length was corrected by Holtz in 2004 to 45cm. Sorry I didn't mention that the scale bar was wrong. One more little tiny thing, at the back of the skull there's the nuchal crest on top, could you maybe extend a little black silhouette from the top left corner down to the top of the skull so it doesn't end so abruptly vertically? Nothing huge but just make it look a little smoother maybe. Sheep81 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's kind of what I mean, I'm sure you can do it better. Sheep81 (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, updated skull. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)