Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

Prehistoric Life in the National Parks Coloring Book
So there is apparently a public domain colouring book by the US National Park Service, which implies the illustrations have been approved by scientists. Some of the illustrations depict animals we don't have images of yet also it seems. So I guess if anyone is up for making coloured versions, this is your chance. I could imagine might be interested? My only concern is that the eye of this mosasaur seems too big. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The Champsosaurus, I believe, is missing toe webbing. would probably have comments on the Mcqueenoceras? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Webbing could be added to a coloured version? Also just thought could be interested, as he has coloured other b/w drawings before. We don't have other restorations of Smilodon gracilis, so I'll try to add it to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I just noticed far from all the drawings have even been uploaded yet (only the ones that can be viewed directly on the site, there are more in the pdf): FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a Hughmilleria in the colouring book (page 11), an eurypterid we don't have a restoration for yet, perhaps, , and can confirm if it's accurate for use? FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks good, although there is a line crossing through the whole middle of the dorsal restoration. I'm pretty sure no eurypterid had such a thing, especially in the anterior segments and in the head. I'm not sure about the posterior segments, and the telson did have that line (called keel). It's not a big deal anyway, it could be kept and uploaded without any modification. Everything else looks good. Super   Ψ   Dro  18:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can easily remove that line, will upload it and add it to the article, then maybe someone else can colourise it if they want. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the Hughmilleria looks good. My only comment besides the line noted by Super Dromaeosaurus is that the ocelli might be a very little bit too far apart (compare to these figures: 1, 2). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the line on the back and moved the small eyes closer, and added it to the article. I also added those small spike/hairs on the legs of the individual in the background. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The overall aspect of Hughmilleria looks good, but compared to the figures mentioned above, I think it still have some space to improve: 1) The ventral opisthosoma should only have 11 visible segments instead of 12, since the transverse sulture of the genital opercula (corresponded to the 1st and 2nd tergite) is not visible, like pterygotids and Slimonia. 2) The dorsal finger of the right chelicera is a fixed ramus, so it should be non-articulated. 3) I'm not sure if the notches and medial projection in front of the carapace is evident, since the margin was smooth and featureless in other formal reconstructions and interpretive drawings. The carapace is a bit difficult, but I think the opercula and chelicera could be fixed by just remove the lines.--Junnn11 (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can fix some of this, though anyone else is of course also welcome too, my understanding of their anatomy is very lacking. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I upload it,, how do these edits look? FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit. I think it looks good enough! --Junnn11 (talk) 06:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The Champsosaurus restoration is way better than the Nobu Tamura one, but the pose is a bit strange. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The pose should be within the possible, movement-wise, seems like it is making a sudden movement or something. I can upload a version with webbing, perhaps someone else wants to colour it afterwards, colouration is not my strongest ability. It does show a different species than NT's, though, so if the article grows, we could use both. If NT's still has inaccuracies, please point them out, then I will try to fix them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now added webbing to the feet of the cropped version of Champsosaurus: The fourth and fifth toes on the hindlimbs were missing the claws, which I think may be a misunderstanding of the missing outer finger claws of archosaurs, so I added those claws as well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The operculum of the Mcqueenoceras is the wrong shape and size, the eyes are camera-type when they probably should be pinhole-type, and the arms have suckers when they should probably have adhesive ridges. I recommend not using it. Carnoferox (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Good to know! I think we can add the inaccurate paleoart tag then, and remove it from the article. It could also possibly be modified, but I don't really know much about the anatomy to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like everything from it was just mominated for deletion: FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Remember to add inaccuracy tags
It seems that more often than not, images added for review are found to be inaccurate, but then archived without the inaccuracy tags being added, and therefore hard to identify again. So at least if you put up an image someone else made for review, remember to tag it as inaccurate if it is deemed as such and doesn't get fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

How to deal with Triangulum's highly inaccurate arthropod reconstructions?
Sorry Triangulum, but these images seem to be in serious trouble right now. Triangulum is a fan of cryptid, and I know well that he is not familiar with arthropod bodyplan, and that arthropod anatomy itself is difficult to understand. Unfortunately, these images are too inaccurate not only for species characteristics but also considering body plans for eurypterid and millipede, and cannot be used. However, I feel that the problem is that these file names are simply very simple file names such as "Pterygotus.png" and "Arthropleura.png". Because of these simple filenames and the seemingly photorealistic style, many people may use this image as a reference. In fact, there are currently some restored illustrations based on this Arthropleura. Yesterday I found these images being used on Wikipedia in Hebrew and replaced them with accurate reconstructions, but they were reverted and I am about to be blocked by considered as trolling. There are already description that show why that is inaccurate in Commons page, but this alone may not be enough. The best way in my opinion is to rename the file. With a file name like "Arthropleura_inaccurate_ispodlike", no one would bother to use this image, and the Commons title currently appearing in image searches will show that image is inaccurate. But the question is whether it will pass the review... Any opinions? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this case is much different from most other cases of inaccurate images. They are usually used on many non-English Wikipedias even when replaced here, but I don't think there's much we can do about that, other than adding replacements, though I don't think it's our responsibility to do this on all Wikipedia. If they revert you even though the images have inaccuracy tags, I don't think changing the filenames will help further with that, they'll revert you anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you for advice. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Bot-tagging unreviewed Commons images
We often run into cases where well-meaning editors add images to articles without realising that there's a review process. I wonder if it'd be possible to auto-tag images that (1) are placed in palaeo-related categories and (2) haven't appeared on a review page before? , is there precedent for this or would that be considered administrative overreach? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen something like that before (except the bot that notifies article talk pages about DRs), and while the general idea sounds interesting, it would no doubt also tag the kinds of images we usually don't review, such as images from papers and fossils, so it create a lot of false alarms. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Size Chart for the Ergilin Dzo formation fauna?
Could anyone here do a size chart for the fauna of the Ergilin Dzo Formation? it would be REALLY helpful and informative. 161.38.238.45 (talk) 05:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)