This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be added to the requested images list or by including "Request:" in the section title here; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
Per project consensus, AI-generated paleoart is not accepted, and will be removed and nominated for deletion when encountered. From our experience, AI paleoart is always inaccurate, and since it derives from copyrighted, human-made artwork, is is both unethical and legally questionable.
If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Criticism of restorations should avoid nitpicking of minor subjective or hypothetical details and should be phrased in a way that is respectful and constructive.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
Added to article by @Penandsuffer: without review. Just curious but is that user another account of the one who did Nagatitan above? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
This appears to have been a coincidence, they are different artists. (that author's Nagatitan art:) Either way both needs review... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
please review for accuracy Penandsuffer (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
I merged this with a post I made before you did. I don't have enough knowledge about dinosaur anatomy, but at the very least, the amount of feathers seems a bit excessive for megaraptoran. Also, the hand pronation might be an issue, although I don't know the range of motion of it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
Apparently, megaraptorans could pronate. But yes, the feathers don't look like the kind of protofeathers one would expect from a non-maniraptoran. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
The anatomy of the feathers or ornamentation around the skull does not look like something plausible for an animal as much as it looks like a decorative helmet or stylized Pokémon. Needs workIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Supersaurus
Supersaurus
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)
Perhaps we can retool this into Dinheirosaurus, a Good Article without a life restoration. What do you say, TotalDino? ~2026-43906-76 (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
Lacking eyelids, the toes do not outturn as footprints show they would, and either the scales would be too small to see (especially for this size of animal) or they would have perspective due to the curvature of the body in 3D, needs work. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:57, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Which species of Sphaerotholus is being depicted? They each have distinct ornamentation, so I can't judge accuracy just from the genus. LittleLazyLass (Talk|Contributions) 20:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
The Marshosaurus seems like an improvement over our existing one, which looks like it's tripping over. The Vectiraptor seems generic enough for its purpose, but am I seeing things, or is the hindmost sickle claw larger than the one in the front? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
Feathering on all the coelurosaurs appears unrealistic with a fading transition into scaled bodyparts. They also all lack eyelids or brows that would be apparent, those that are scaled lack any sort of perspective on the scales that would be apparent from the rounded bodies, the squamosal nodes on the Sphaerotholus do not match any of the known species, the Micropachycephalosaurus would not have had a weight-bearing first digit and either would be a ceratopsian with a jugal horn or not a ceratopsian without one (there is no middle ground), metatarsals are too long on the ornithischians, the Borealopelta lacks any sort of depth and has a weird left wrist, and the Marshosaurus has a skull that is likely too large? All need revisionsIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 05:31, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
-Borealopelta: Metatarsals shortened, left wrist adjusted, added perspective on scales, shading increased to show depth. TotalDino (talk) 19:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
Pawpawsaurus campbelli reconstruction
Reconstruction of Pawpawsaurus campbelli
Im new and I’d like to ask for someone to review it for accuracy! Void Lampshade (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)
I think the overall design is well done, including the proportions and details of the toes. I don't have the knowledge to say whether the osteoderm arrangement is correct. It would be great if someone could actively review it... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
Pawpawsaurus has no referred osteoderms; the reconstruction closely follows the anatomy of the above Borealopelta reconstruction, which was recovered as its closest relative by Brown et al. (2017). I say the reconstruction is fine, though uncannily similar to the above Borealopelta in certain aspects. Ddinodan (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
I will add that the fleshy nostil should be very close to the front and bottom edge of the snout, as well established by Witmer in 2001. Needs revisionIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 05:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Plesiolophus
Plesiolophus
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Lacking eyelids, nostril placement should be at the very end by the beak, the feet are blocky and blobular, the scales either shouldnt be visible or should show perspective. Needs workIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 05:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Nostril moved closer to beak, feet less blocky and blobular, perspective added to scales.
I'd like to point out - the scales I use are a repeating pattern, so giving them perspective means reducing the aspect ratio along a gradient of the template, thus making them non-repeatable. It ends up looking better, but it fundamentally changes my artistic process.
Of course accuracy and realism are a priority, but some things are stylistic choices while others are technical limitations. TotalDino (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
Musango
Musango
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
Lacking eyelids or brow, nostril too high, scale pattern doesn't make sense as said elsewhere, skull shape is weirdly blocky and unlike any prosauropods except Ngwevu which is not a close relative. Needs workIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 05:36, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Gravitholus is a junior synonym of Stegoceras – why does it have its own illustration? ~2026-43166-47 (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
I have a feeling the Gravitholus reconstruction can be retooled into Sinocephale, which is at GA status yet lacks a life reconstruction. ~2026-43239-79 (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
Very good idea, what do you say, TotalDino? I can rename the file if you modify the image accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
In the same vein I've also proposed TD's Supersaurus to become Dinheirosaurus above. ~2026-43906-76 (talk) 10:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
On the other hand, it might not be the worst thing to have a recon ready in case it ever got revived in the future. LittleLazyLass (Talk|Contributions) 04:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
The Gravitholus is quite inaccurate to the known anatomy. Unlike subadult Stegoceras, the frontoparietal dome is continuous with the marginal elements, so there would be no shelf behind it. As well, the nodules are reduced in prominence and do not form a continuous ring to the snout (only found in Prenocephale). The attachment of the neck to the rear skull suggests no overhang of the shelf, which is incorrect, and the beak anatomy is wrong. There would be a very very small keratinous beak, premaxillary teeth would be visible, and the snout is slightly flared. The body is also wrong, as the tail is not deep enough (ossified tendons create a very deep profile), the necks should be shorter, the hindlimbs should be shorter and more robustly muscled, and the back should be more curved. Major revisions to fail. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 16:01, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 07:47, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
I have a question: Where does the idea of Tyrannotitan having spikes come from? Is it just speculative or is there a scientific reason behind it? Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
Liaoceratops yanzigouensis
Liaoceratops reconstruction with paleoenviroment
Putting comment to make it easier to reply. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
The skull of Liaoceratops is not "domed" like the resotration suggests, the skull table from the snout to the frill should be nearly flat with slightly raised orbital ridges. Minor revisionsIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 18:18, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
Changing all things you refer to. Additionally, I revise the head to be shorter to fit in the scale features of specimen IVPP V12738. User Lai bou shi (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
It is now acceptable to me anatomically, but artistically there are some changes that I would recommend prior to use. The eye lacks a pupil, the margins of the skull are blurry, the lighting across the tail is inconsistent with the torso, and the cropping puts the subject well out of the center of the frame. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 15:54, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Shouldn’t the Rebbachisaurus have more of those spiky things running down its back, i’ve seen lots of restorations like that but is there any proof of that on Rebbachisaurus or on any other rebbachisaurid in general? ~2026-45702-94 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
I wasn't actually sure how speculative those are. I left them off here to hopefully emphasize the actual "sail" created by the neural spines. If anyone has better info on this, I can add them. TotalDino (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2026 (UTC)
They're speculative. It's okay without them. Pass~2026-45789-51 (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
The skull of Rebbachisaurus is not depicted like the derived taxon it is, rather being closer to an ancestral condition like Lavocatisaurus and even then lacking the width across the snout. The foot anatomy of the Albertadromeus mistaken, the left digit 2 is far too narrow. Both need minor revisions. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 15:52, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Nipponopelta
Nipponopelta
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 02:43, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Looks fine.But why Nipponpeltaia red?does it have reference as Borealopelta's scientifically confirmed color?User Lai bou shi (talk) 05:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Sorry.I make a typo. "Nipponpelta is",not "Nipponpeltaia". User Lai bou shi (talk) 05:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
Partly to make it similar to the closely related Borealopelta. Also sort of in honor of Japan's cultural association with the color red. If you don't know what color the animal is, you have to pick something... TotalDino (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
I don't love the lack of a shoulder spine (seen in all supposed closest relatives) nor the continued artistic style of merging keratinized spines into non-keratinized skin rather than showing delineations as would be present. I would suggest these revisions. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 02:06, 29 August 2026 (UTC)
Changzhousaurus sinensis
A newly described theropod species from the Jiufotang Formation(described in June,2026).
Depicting a Changzhousaurus sinensis standing on a broken driftwood by the lake.
Can anyone double-check the accuracy of this picture? If there are no further objections, I'll proceed with adding to the article. Thanks!
The lack of resolution renders this image below the standards of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY we require, in addition to likely problematic hand and foot anatomy like digit widths and lengths. FailIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 03:04, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Zhenyuanlong suni & Jeholosaurus shangyuanensis
Depicting a Zhenyuanlong suni hunted a Jeholosaurus shangyuanensis,and a Sinosauropteryx in the background.
All species were from Yixian formation.
The colors of Zhenyuanlong are inspired by Charadrius vociferus.
The primitive fluff on Jeholosaurus uses Phylogenetic Bracketing based on basal ornithischian (e.g.,Kulindadromeus,Tianyulong). The colorations on Sinosauropteryx based on fossilized melanosome restoration. (Zhang,et al. Nature,2010 /
Smithwick, F.M.; Nicholls, R.; Cuthill, I.C.; Vinther, J. Current Biology, 2017) —Preceding unsigned comment added by User Lai bou shi (talk • contribs) 05:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
@User Lai bou shi please sign your posts whenever you comment or make a new post, and you can do by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Thanks! - BlueEleephant (talk · contribs) 15:05, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Foot anatomy is problematic, particularly with the Zhenyuanlong where one foot is oriented over 90 degrees relative to the hip which would make it severely broken in life. Otherwise the feet have unusual toe widths and proportions, and other details like eye placement on the Jeholosaurus and lack of a brow are problematic. RevisionsIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 03:02, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Forelimb placement is also wrong, it should be located lower than here. The feathering not entirely accurate also, the wing secondary feathers are too irregular in length. Tail feathers are not entirely accurate too. Zhenyuanlong had leaf-like tail feathering similar to Archaeopteryx. I suggest looking at the photograph of the skeleton with feather impressions to adjust the drawing. It appears that Jeholosaurus has metatarsals of unequal lengths. It would be better to make the thigh slightly shorter and angled further back, and the belly a bit more voluminous. RevisionsIldarotyrannus (talk · contribs) 21:07, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Shenzhousaurus orientalis
Depicting three Shenzhousaurus running at high speed, fleeing from a giant sauropod (Donbeititan dongi) in a dusty environment.
The colorations and plumage patterns are inspired by the Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), a kind of ground-dwelling bird often live in open environments such as shrubbery or plains environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User Lai bou shi (talk • contribs) 06:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
Several issues are apparent in the anatomy, primarily due to the art style. Toe lengths are inconsistent, eyeball size and placement as well, and the angles of the legs would not all be visible from the postures given. RevisionsIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 03:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Dongbeititan dongi
Depicting a giant sauropod ,Donbeititan dongi,crashed into a tree, demonstrating potential tree-toppling behavior to access high-tier leaves of a young Araucaria.
Such dynamic feeding strategies are supported by similar ecological behaviors in modern megaherbivores (e.g., African savanna elephants, Loxodonta africana) and bio-mechanical models of sauropod weight distribution (Witton, 2013; Engh, 2015).
The reconstruction illustrates the moment of trunk failure (Note that it is not illustrated the moment that Dongbeititan uses its fore legs to crash the tree.instead,it is demonstrated as its limbs have already crushed on ground)
and resultant ground-level plants disturbance within the Yixian Formation ecosystem.
Background environments are composed of coniferous forest and river with two Dongbeititan in distant view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User Lai bou shi (talk • contribs) 00:40, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
What comes to mind most is the posture, it is unlikely that the legs and arms were flexible enough to overlap in such a way while maintaining a straight limb. Secondarily, the feet are columnar rather than properly toed. Major revisions. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 15:47, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
The extent of feathering present here is near equal to Parker’s. Additionally, this is Struthiomimus, and not “Ornithomimus”. Ddinodan (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Agreed, these revisions are not necessary. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 15:46, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
No obvious issues. Pass~2026-47011-08 (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
By the way, if you plan to write reviews here frequently, I recommend creating a user account. (Also, if possible, I would appreciate if you can do reviews of works by Lai bou shi mentioned above...) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:08, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
As said elsewhere, the feather-body transition needs workIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:35, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Albertavenator
Albertavenator
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
It shows the expected anatomy of the taxon and the typical anatomy of other troodontids 👍 Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 10:28, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
The feather-body transition does not appear as it would in a living animal, as I have said for other pieces as well. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Balaur
Balaur
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Does balaur have the dewclaw or hallux on the back of its foot considering it’s possible relations to dromaeosauridae? Gregormaj (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
The second "sickle" claw IS Balaur's hallux. TotalDino (talk) 18:48, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Oh ok Gregormaj (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
Why do the feathers transition into the body in a way that looks like a fading transparency (ankles and snout etc)? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:33, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Pachycephalosaurus wyomingensis
Hi everyone! I'm new and I’d like to ask for someone to review my life restorations for accuracy 🙂 (this drawing is based on AMNH 1696). Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
It appears the ornamentation in this and the restorations below are not shown extended by keratin but only show the bony bases? FunkMonk (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Actually there is some amount of keratin covering ornamentations and horns. You can compare the skull of each specimen with my drawing of it and you can clearly see that the horns in my drawings are a bit larger (my pachycephalosaur drawings are based on the "Problematic Pachycephalosaurs" post by Ddinodan on Instagram so you can find the actual skulls there 🙂). Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Sandy the Pachycephalosaur
P-L-E-A-S-E review for accuracy 🙂. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Stygimoloch spinifer
P-L-E-A-S-E review for accuracy 🙂 (It's based on UCMP 131163).Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Dracorex hogwartsia
P-L-E-A-S-E review for accuracy 🙂 (it's based on the holotype specimen). Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Pachycephalosaurins (or just different growth stages of Pachycephalosaurus)
P-L-E-A-S-E review for accuracy 🙂. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
Not sure about the neck articulation - it attaches at a more vertical orientation in pachycephalosaurs than in other dinosaurs where it fits in directly behind the head. Orientation seems broadly accurate across the board, though the Stygimoloch dome could perhaps use some delineation from the rest of the skull to show the change in integument. LittleLazyLass (Talk|Contributions) 02:26, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
So, is it a "Pass" or "needs revisions" in your opinion? Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 05:47, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
In all cases here the jugal nodes are not "projecting" in a way that would create a vertical demarcation to their rear, so that would need to be adjusted. The size and placements of the eyes within the orbits feel off as well, as does the lack of texturing for what would have been rugose and cornified surfaces of the skull. Revisions pleaseIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
It would be good to add eyelids, a keratin texture on the dome, and some skin folds to make it look more natural. Ildarotyrannus (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
It shows the known anatomy of the taxon very well 👍 I guess the extent of feathers is speculative but I think that it could have some tail feathers too. Also I'm curious to know which skeletal reconstruction is it based on? Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 10:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Possibly the newly published one: But yes, even Deinocheirus is restored with a tail fan due to its pygostyle, a widespread feature among oviraptorosaurs too, though the tail tip of Gigantoraptor itself seems to be unknown. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
The anatomy here follows the recently published osteology.
A pygostyle is not correlated with a tail fan, nor is one correlated with a feathered tail; Epidexipteryx has complex tail feathers, yet lacks one. Cruralispennia has a pygostyle, yet lacks a tail fan (as is the condition for many enantiornithes). A 2018 SVP abstract reports a Mongolian iguanodontid with a pygostyle, noting similar anatomy to the one reported in Deinocheirus. If you're really generous, most derived ankylosaurs also have a pygostyle.
It should also be noted that the 'pygostyle' of Deinocheirus is represented by two fused distalmost vertebra with no comment on if the fusion is natural or pathological. Regardless, as mentioned, this element is not preserved in Gigantoraptor to begin with. Ddinodan (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Normally all Oviraptorosaurs are reconstructed with (if not a tail fan) some tail feathers, we know that even some of the most primitive Oviraptorosaurs including Caudipteryx, Similicaudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx had developed tail feathers for display, and other more derived Oviraptorosaurs like Citipati, Conchoraptor and Nomingia had a pygostyle-like bone which there's a high chance that it supported a tail fan, so phylogenetic-ly if even Gigantoraptor didn't have a tail fan, at least it had some sort of tail feathering. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
It's hard to predict how anatomy and integument might change in such a large oviraptorosaur. It's also a caenagnathid in particular, which have a very incomplete fossil record which should give pause to any bracketing-based criticism, especially in a basal taxon. In lack of preservation, I don't think it's reasonable to consider it an inaccuracy. It depicts the known anatomy fine and I'd say it's a Pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk|Contributions) 20:03, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes, as I said earlier, the extent of feathers in Gigantoraptor is speculative, so although there's a high chance of it having tail feathers, it could lack them too... so I will say PASS. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
These are not present on the holotype of T. neglectus (nor are they present in several other specimens of this taxon). Ddinodan (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
So we have two user made Aquilops restorations on Commons, and I can probably find room for one in the soon to be GAN article because we don't have a standard full body restoration otherwise, but neither received any comments at their previous reviews, so I hope to get some this time around:
By TotalDino
By Nobu Tamura
The one by TotalDino seems more accurate to me, as the NT one has oddly inflated toes and does not seem to take the palpebral bone into account above the eye (neither do Brian Engh's restorations from the actual paper, unfortunately, making it look overly cute). The TD one has a very hindwards extending keratinous predentary beak, which seems to fit the skeletal, but not other life restorations, so not sure what's correct. FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
The Nobu Tamura's Aquilops seems to have no ear opening and I think that the dewclaw seems too small, also TotalDino's Aquilops looks a lot better and has a better image quality, so I choose TotalDino's. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Neither reconstruction here follows the known skull anatomy- both lack the brow created by the palpebral, with TD's skull being a near perfect match to Hartman's Archaeoceratops skeletal with an elongated premax/rostrum. Ddinodan (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
But is this reconstruction from the publication incorrect? It shows Aquilops in its entirety.
As mentioned above, Engh's reconstructions also lack the brow created by the palpebral. Ddinodan (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
Yes, and it is also not a standard complete lateral view. Engh's also seem to show claws on the fourth fingers. Of course, unless TD fixes their version, if Dinodan wants to give it a go, that might be the solution. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
TotalDino, would you be able to modify your restoration according to the comments above? FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
Added palpebral brow, adjusted skull shape and beak angle, added perspective to scales. TotalDino (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
I have tagged both of these as inaccurate due to several reasons. The Engh piece probably exaggerates the eye and ignores the palpebral brow, but its published and otherwise good that I'm not going to get into it. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 05:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Kayrasaurus
Kayrasaurus
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
the overall anatomy is fine 👍 but I think that the first hand claw is a bit too long, it looks shorter in the skeletal ( I know that there is a layer of keratin on the claw, but it must be a bit shorter and more curved ). Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
The way the feathers merge into bare skin will continue to bother me. The feet are reconstructed too derived, yes Erlikosaurus had a prominent fourth toe but it was a distant relative and the condition seen in Beipiaosaurus was that the fourth (innermost) toe would have reached the ground but not been weight-bearing. Lacks eyelids and any sort of ear, and though the proportions are in agreement with the skeletal they are not aligned with the measurements and therefore need to be adjusted to match (see Dan's below where the measurements are used over the skeletal). Major revisions pleaseIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
minor revisions: The skull might be a little too big in proportion to the rest of the body. It looks smaller in the skeletal. ~2026-49377-96 (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
The paper skeletal is in error in numerous ways, one of which is that the skull is disproportionately small. For referece, following their measurements, the skull is 48.3cm as preserved, while the whole of the neck is 76.1 cm. Anticipating a comment that the skull is then too small, using the scalebar as a guide, the mandible is ~40cm, and so the true length of the cranium was likely closer to this- this is in agreement with the reconstruction above. LancianIdolatry (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Seeing as the proportions match the published measurements, Pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk|Contributions) 04:22, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Those are Argentine dinosaur reconstructions most of which were uploaded all at once on virtually the same day. There were multiple uploaders, and while many of the images do not appear to be the uploaders' own work, most seem to have been uploaded with permission (though it is necessary to check for any files where this is unclear). It seems there is some sort of event taking place on the Spanish Wikipedia, and some of these images are being used in articles there. (e.g. es:Kank australis) Most have "Wikidinos argentinos" category on file, which also contain some of event-related uploads. But anyway we have to check accuracy or copyright status... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 09:18, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
the dewclaw seems to be on the wrong side of the foot in Koleken E. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)
Also Inawentu B's jaw seems to be so narrow. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2026
I am not investing the time to look at the non-ornithischians for minutia right now but I will comment on many.
The Patagopelta pieces both look nice, A is probably better and is heavily based on Stegouros while B is more neutral and has some different but plausible anatomy of the beak.
Most of the Kank illustrations look usable but I have not looked into proportions, Kank A may be too robust or foreshortened. Kank E seems stylized in a way that is not anatomically accurate (head versus snout, pose, and colours).
Both Titanomachya appear acceptable, but again I have not assessed proportions.
Of the Koleken, A B and C all look acceptable, but the eye of D is too large and its nasal is not rugose from cornified skin or keratin. E is not particularly useful due the art style and has the old-fashioned toe claws that are inaccurate, art style similarly renders F inaccurate in the soft tissue, G looks good, and while H appears good I think its snout is too short or the skull proportions are off. Again proportions have not been rigorously assessed.
I believe both Patagopteryx are inaccurate, the arms are far too set apart on A while the feathering of B and the anatomy of the feet etc is unrealistic.
I may continue with other pieces later. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 05:15, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Hindlimb poses on Vitosaura piece are same in two individuals. I don't think this is good for an illustration. Ildarotyrannus (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Added more new reconstructions. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2026 (UTC)
To be frank, what is even the point of uploading this? Wikipedia is not DeviantArt. You're clearly a novice artist. While there's nothing wrong with producing such work when you're a beginner for practice, it's not actually useful to anyone else as an artistic work. We already have numerous illustrations of Tyrannosaurus, some of which are extremely high quality e.g. . Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
As you said, I am a novice artist, and the point of uploading this isn't for using it in articles as an artistic work ( I know that it is just a pencil drawing with very low quality ). I just wanted to publish my work somewhere, Deviantart is filtered in our country and I saw other people uploading paleoart in wikipedia and reviewing its accuracy here, and I thought maybe I can do this too, so as it is written above this page "This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review)." So I did it.
And, PLEASE REVIEW THE ACCURACY OF MY LOW QUALITY DRAWINGS TOO 🙁 Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Also I have to say that the reason why I deleted these discussions was not to hide the criticisms, no actually I updated my restorations based on what SlvrHwk and LittleLazyLass said and I thought that I have to delete the old discussions.
So don't think that I wanted to hide their comments. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
The point of reviewing paleoart here is that there is a baseline expectation that it is going to be used in a Wikipedia article, but as already established we already have suitable, higher quality works for the dinosaurs you have drawn. From the perspective of the reviewer, why bother giving feedback if it's not going to be used in an article in the first place? If you want to be part of the paleoart community and have people give general feedback on your work, this is not the place for it. You'd be better served by social media or Discord servers like Paleostream . If those are blocked you can download a VPN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
OK, so I will remove them from here. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
I would encourage you to keep working on your art, your linework looks good. Tracing isn't bad as a learning tool but it just means that we can't use it on the site without running into copyright issues and if it's not compliant with Commons' rules it's outside of our purview. Maybe if you keep practising and get to the point where you can achieve a similar quality without tracing skeletal outlines then it might be more useful to us. LittleLazyLass (Talk|Contributions) 17:57, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Thank you 🙂 I will keep trying and practicing! Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Mesetasaurus
Mesetasaurus
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
It is somewhat uncanny to have irregular scalation on the orange colours and then a series of regular scales over the midline in the green, particularly since these, if visible, would have perspective and contour to the body which is absent. The jaws are somewhat questionable as well as neither teeth nor a cornified oral margin is present, at least one or the other should be. It also lacks eyelids and has some weirdness around the feet with a shadow where the heel would be convex and toes that aren't outturned enough for the footprints we see. Revisions pleaseIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:23, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
Looks like it has too few metacarpals? Should be five? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:46, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
If this is turned into a more complete piece (with editing to remove the paper etc) it would be nice, the only major suggestion I would give is to reorient the osteoderms, they were likely projecting somewhat to the rear and their placement would have to follow the curvature over the hips etc instead of being in a line from a side view. Revisions pleaseIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
I tried to remove the background, but it didn't look good 😐...
The exact arrangement of osteoderms on the body of a titanosaur is not known and it is possible that different species had different arrangements, so basically there isn't a single accurate way to draw the osteoderms. Also, my osteoderm arrangement is based on the skeletal by Scott Hartman which you can see here . Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 11:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
We now have some evidence from preliminary works that the osteoderms were more over the base of the tail. Regardless, the comment about their orientation still stands as they would conform to body contours resulting in a sinuous arrangement relative to the top of the back and tail, raised up above the hindlimb muscles and onto the pelvis instead of over the side of the hindlimbs. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 02:59, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
The only other anatomical change I would require is to make the toe claws deeper (the outermost one appears more like a fingernail than a tall claw). Otherwise the anatomy is correct but the piece is still not very useful until it can be cleaned so the subject can be seen in thumbnail view. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 00:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
I couldn't completely remove the background but I replaced the background with white. I hope that's enough 🙂. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
I think I would approve it to be added to the article at this point, though any future changes to add more detail would improve it even further. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 00:16, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Proportionally and artistically very nice and covers aspects of neoceratopsian anatomy that aren't always done well. PassIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:18, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
A welcome addition, the only restoration we have that accurately shows the palpebral. FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)
If it is based on Scott Hartman's skeletal (actually seems so), note that G. Masukawa (who is also artist that provides skeletals like Kamuysaurus) pointed that reconstructed mount of Archaeoceratops is based on two specimens with slightly different sizes (larger specimen with skull, vertebrae and around waist, and smaller specimen with tail and hindlimbs). I am not sure if it can be said for this skeletal as well, but I assume so. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
It looks traced from hartman's skeletal, with the modification of a weight-bearing stance for one leg instead of mid-stride. Anatomically not much could be wrong, but the upper beak should be broader anteroposteriorly and overlap with the lower beak and the eye should be more central to anterior under the brow. I would not add it to any articles though in its current state as it is simply a colourless lineart that requires image editing to clear the background and remove the lighting shadows. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 02:58, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
It is based on Scott Hartman's skeletal. The beak is right, it seems that the upper beak is so small but you can see that it is so thin and small on the skull too (File:Archaeoceratops.jpg, ) so it doesn't completely overlap with the lower beak if the jaw is closed. And the eye is in the right place too, I drew the brow a bit longer than the bone under it, so it seems that the eye is in the wrong place. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 07:06, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
Despite the interpretation by Hartman, his skeletal does not accurately depict the rostral bone. Wang et al. (2025) make it clear that the rostral possesses ventrolateral processes, comparable to their size in Aquilops and thus resulting in a similar profile of beak, see File:Aquilops americanus life reconstruction.png as a reference for what the beak should look like, if you neglect the spike at the front. In the same way, we do not have scleral rings for Archaeoceratops so their size in Hartman's skeletal has no foundation. The eye in vertebrates fills the orbit in juveniles the specimens of Archaeoceratops are not clearly adult, so the eyes should be noticeably larger than in Hartman's skeletal and again more comparable to in Dan's Aquilops. Revisions are still neededIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 00:10, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
I updated my restoration and I added a new one too which has a better image quality and shadows are less visible (the eye is smaller too). I tried a lot to remove the background, my last attempt destroyed the first restoration (the actual drawing on the paper), please give me a solution. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)
Anatomically much improved. I would suggest digitally editing to remove the background, or using something like Adobe Scan on your phone to save the image under the "lineart" filter which would give similar results. There should be tutorials online. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 05:01, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
I replaced the background with white. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Unfortunately I couldn't remove the background, but, is it necessary to remove the background? I think that my restoration is more accurate than Nobu Tamura's File:Archaeoceratops BW.jpg which is made in 2007 and is still being used in the article (and many other articles). Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
The linework is definitely nice, but the shadow and glare are distracting and unprofessional for encyclopedic purposes. It's not readily distinct at thumbnail view, so I would say the presentation should be polished before use. Also, if you're going to continue tracing from other people's work they need to be cited in the image description. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
thanks 🙂
I will try to remove the shadows. I've just written in the description of this file and Magyarosaurus that they are based on Scott Hartman's skeletals, but I didn't know that this is considered tracing too, because I changed the silhouettes completely (moved the leg, closed the jaw, added a new arm). Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 21:10, 22 September 2026 (UTC)
All these pieces lack eyebrows and the texturing issues come across more apparently. Keratin features manifest with a distinct boundary in the skin when there's a colour difference, so there should be a hard boundary apparent. The skin and scalation pattern is also problematic because it means there is no depth to the art and no perspective or curvature to the body. The same issues with boundaries and texturing appear with feathers, and it is worth considering if given these issues they would be useful to replace existing artwork where anatomically equivalent. The Giraffatitan also has a very deep lower jaw and no teeth? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 05:08, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
The Medusaceratops needs revision:
Epiparietal 1 was small and locate near the midline parietal ramus.
Epiparietal 2 was a large thickened hook curving anterolaterally, but for now it's too big.
Epiparietal 3 was a smaller hook with a slight anterolateral curve.
Epiparietal 4 and 5 was small had triangular shape.
The squamosal should have 3 episquamosales, where now are 4.
I agree with the previous speaker that there are no eyelids around the eyes (Albertaceratops doesn’t have them either, but I’ve only just noticed the absence of the eyelid).
I also get the impression that the nasal ornament is set too deep into the nasal bone.
I think this diagram might also be helpful in improving the appearance of the epiparietales
Medusaceratops epiparietals and squamosales rearranged as requested, scales given curvature perspective, shading on eyelids made more pronounced. TotalDino (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Ep 1 is still missing. See what it should look like from a side view, based on this reconstruction.
According to Senter at least (), this degree of flexion in the first digit of the manus would not have been possible. I also wonder if digits 4 and 5 in the pes should be visible. Other than that, looks good to me. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2026 (UTC)
Image has been adjusted. Ddinodan (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
Thanks; I just added it to the article. Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:30, 25 September 2026 (UTC)
No revisions needed, very much approved and a nice piece to replace one with problematic authorship and posture IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 22:31, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Allosaurus Illustrations
Allosaurus fragilis
Juvenile Allosaurus fragilis
Allosaurus jimmadseni, based on the Big Al ll Specimen
Why does the first Allosaurus fragilis look really short, its legs seem too short and plus, we already have a lot of Allosaurus fragilis reconstructions ~2026-51736-14 (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
In all cases, the anatomy of the feet (toe lengths, separation of digits, claw forms) is inaccurate, as is the width of the skull, which would be visible through the perspective in the mouth and lacrimal crests. Colouration, speculative display features, and flatlighting also impact the usability of all of these pieces. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 22:37, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Okay, I see... Allosaurus is one of my favorite dinosaurs, which is why I’ve uploaded those stylized drawings that I mainly post over on my DA as a newcomer here on Wikipedia. But I’ll definitely try my best to fix all these anatomical issues in future reuploads. And speaking of the coloration, which one probably suits the best for Allosaurus as I gave the subjects gold-and-red-influenced colors and patterns in order to differentiate them from the more lion or felid-like colorations I’ve seen done for other peoples’ reconstructions such as the ones by Fred Wierum. But given all the Allosaurus reconstructions out there that have been made by other artists that have probably got more experience with dinosaur anatomy than I do, as well as the overall anatomical inaccuracies of some of my first dinosaur illustrations on this site, I’ll at least try to do only two more Allosaurus illustrations, one on A.fragilis and the other on A.jimmadseni, that will be based on the skeletals of Scott Hartman, whom I’ll use as the basis for some of my future dinosaur illustrations for this site as he nails the anatomy and proportions correctly. And are there also any references, guides, etc. which I can use for properly getting dinosaur anatomy, body proportions and skin textures right for my future drawings, since I’m a young self-taught paleoartist who has long had an active presence on DeviantArt and Tumblr for over 6 years and is a newcomer to this site who is currently striving to create anatomically-realistic and scientifically-informed reconstructions of dinosaurs and other forms of prehistoric life for the Creative Commons to use amidst the increasingly-concerning proliferation of ai-generated imagery on the paleontology/paleoart-related side of the internet. MakairodonX (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Camarasaurus and Diplodocus Illustrations
A herd of Camarasaurus lentus feeding on Araucaria leaves as three Dryosaurus feed on the leaves they’ve left behind
Illustration of a Diplodocus encountering a juvenile Allosaur in what is now the Late Jurassic Villar del Arzobispo Formation of Spain, inspired by recent fossil finds in the area
A downside of the style of both of these is that the fine anatomy is resultingly very inaccurate. Limb musculature, foot and hand anatomy, and features like the prominence or perspective of beaks does not match what would be represented in life, and requires major revisionsIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 22:34, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
So what are some of the revisions I could do to change my sauropod pictures? MakairodonX (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Since these are some of the first sauropod illustrations I’ve ever done for this site, as I personally tend to do more of these stylized drawings over on my DA. But I’ll definitely try my best to fix the limb muscles, anatomy of the feet and hands and beaks in subsequent revised uploads. MakairodonX (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
As the goal here is to be illustrative and encyclopedic, stylized works are not very likely to be used, even if anatomically accurate, over those that depict animals in ways that are more likely to correspond with the appearance of an actual animal. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 03:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
So is it okay for me to base the drawings I put on this site on rigorous skeletal reconstructions of the animals in order to get their anatomy and body proportions right? MakairodonX (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Tyrannosaurus rex illustration
PaleoIllustration inspired by the discovery of an T.rex fossil trackway in South Dakota
It is very improbable for the head and neck of Tyrannosaurus to be flexible enough for this posture. As well, the foot anatomy is inaccurate with all three toes being subparallel and equal lengths on one foot, or the innermost toe appearing longest in the other. The inspiration is nice, but I cannot approve the piece without major revisionsIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 22:31, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
Okay. But the dinosaur is shown walking from a near-bird’s eye-style view in this drawing, which is why some aspects of its anatomy appear to look inaccurate when seen from above. But if it is shown walking at ground-level angle or view, its anatomy would have certainly looked more accurate, and I’ll nevertheless try to fix all these anatomical issues in a future upload as this is my first attempt at doing a T.rex illustration for this site. MakairodonX (talk) 08:02, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Norellraptor
Norellraptor
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
The feather texture used on the tail and wings as the primary coverts looks very distracting and would be considered anatomically inaccurate as none of the feathers are actually oriented in the way that they should be. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 02:56, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Norellraptor barsboldi illustration
Life restoration of Norellraptor barsboldi
Please review for scientific accuracy. MakairodonX (talk) 07:44, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
The skull anatomy does not line up, the snout is somehow rectangular here. There are too few primaries (should be 10-12 based on relatives), and the foot anatomy is somewhat crude with proportions being out of wack. The flight posture also feels wrong, I believe we have studies on Microraptor determining what posture it would have while flying. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 02:57, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Lythronax argestes
Please review for accuracy 🙂 (I will remove the background after review.) Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2026 (UTC)
Looks stupid but thats how it seems everyone restores it so the art is a pass even if the animal isn't IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 02:59, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
All anatomy checked out as it was being drawn. PassIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 02:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how were you able to check out the anatomy “as it was being drawn”? Miracusaurs2 (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
We are in a Discord server where I will share work-in-progress updates of these drawings for people to critique as I work. Ddinodan (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
I have no issues with this piece. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 06:07, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Should the sides of the abdomen perhaps seem rounder/more bulbous? They seem a bit narrow now, but I read that Shin-ichi Fujiwara pointed out that they are often shown too lean when they should be pretty broad. FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
I do think the roundness of this one matches both the articulated fossils and the Nicholls model enough to be acceptable, but roundness overall might be a thing we are underestimating across all art. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 19:07, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
The only problem here is the lack of the clusters of pigmented scales on the forelimb as well as the large patagia on its hind leg, except this, everything is right. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 06:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
This is P. mongoliensis. The one Psittacosaurus we have colour for is P. sp. Here we do alsso see a darker colour on the top compared to the bottom. So there's still some countershading like the other specimen. No colour change is needed imo.
The patagium is also present in the drawing. The fossil specimen of P. sp is flattened, so soft tissues can look wider in some places than they would have in life. I think the current extent of the patagium in the drawing is reasonable.
Size chart for the new tyrannosaur, comments welcome. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)
Added the smaller referred specimen. I can also add the juvenile tentative referral (see here) but that might verge to far on OR. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
PassIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 19:06, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
Revisions needed - The hands appear partially supinated and the jaw joint would have to be in the middle of the jugal for the depicted mandible position to work. The pelvis (ischium region) is too deep, and the hindlimbs (zeugo-/autopodia) are too short. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Hands adjusted, jugal repositioned to accomodate jaw joint, ischium region slimmed down, and hindlimbs lengthened. TotalDino (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Revisions needed - the mandible seems to be a bit too thin anteriorly, and the arms and legs are much too short. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:06, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
I think the anteriorly thin mandible is a reflection of the soft tissue required to close the underbite (noted by the authors on twitter and in the skeletal), but I cannot comment on the arm and leg proportions. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 04:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, as can be seen in the paper's skeletals, the mandible doesn't protrude that far, so it's all soft tissue. There is something off with the leg posture here, though, the toes of the lifted foot would probably not be held straight out in this part of the walk-cycle, and the hind leg should probably be further back. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Psittacosaurus neimongoliensis
Please review for accuracy 🙂 (I will remove the background after review.) Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
I'm not going to review the anatomy of this one because it is so clearly traced from Dan's above that the authorship should mention him. Details such as the nostril shape and placement, ear shape and placement, jugal horn, brow ridge, and dentary flange that I suggested to him appear here. As well the skull just doesn't reflect the anatomy of P. sinensis, which is notable for its shorter snout, stronger jugal horn, and the absence of the dentary flange. Because of the lack of attribution, clear elements of tracing (not an immediate copyright violation since Dan's is freely licensed, but attribution is required), and the anatomy not conforming to the appropriate species, this is a straight fail. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 17:07, 4 October 2026 (UTC)
Scott Hartman's skeletal of Psittacosaurus sinensis (which my life restoration is based on) was actually based on the holotype of Psittacosaurus neimongoliensis, so I added a new file reflecting P. neimongoliensis 's anatomy. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
Infernogallus size chart based on the holotype. Comments welcome. -SlvrHwk (talk) 10:24, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
PassIJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 19:05, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Infernogallus
Infernogallus
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
As with other pieces using the feather texture, the anatomy of the secondaries is inaccurate and requires substantial revision. They are not oriented at random and have different morphology that the cut and paste texture does not represent. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 19:04, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Hesperornithoides miessleri
Please review for accuracy 🙂 (I will remove the background after review.) Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Why does it look like its missing teeth? Gregormaj (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
Please review for accuracy MakairodonX (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2026 (UTC)
It seems to have pennaceous feathers on the humerus, which they mustn't be there. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 13:25, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Invictibellatrix
Invictibellatrix
Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
The anatomy appears based on Australovenator and Megaraptor which are much more derived and have different proportions than Invictibellatrix would. The head is too small, hands and claws are too large, and the legs and torso are too robust. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 03:22, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
Head larger, hands and claws smaller, legs and torso slimmed down. TotalDino (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2026 (UTC)
Pass. It's a good generalized megaraptoran, not much else to say. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2026 (UTC)
Invictibellatrix amberina Illustration
Speculative life restoration of Invictibellatrix amberina, the first megaraptoran dinosaur described from Europe, based off of T.K. Robinson’s composite megaraptoran skeletal: https://incinerox.artstation.com/projects/J9aV0d
While the anatomy of this is pretty good to matching the skeletal, Invictibellatrix would have been noticeably more plesiomorphic than the Megaraptor/Australovenatoe composite, so it's proportions here are a bit less likely. I would say this is a pass but I wouldn't use it in the article over a piece with more well-bracketted morphology such as Dan's above. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}} 19:02, 16 October 2026 (UTC)
Lambeosaurus lambei
Please review for accuracy 🙂 (I will remove the background paper after review.) Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Seems to be good but does the skin match the skin impressions? Gregormaj (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Skin impressions from Lambeosaurus show that it had tiny unornamented scales across the entire body so there's no need to show the scales in the drawing. Anonymous Dinonerd (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2026 (UTC)
Prehistoric Life in the National Parks Coloring Book dinosaurs
So after these were finally restored after an erroneous mass-deletion, I think it would be good to have them reviewed, even though they were made under supposed supervision by palaentologists (we noticed a few inaccuracies in the past), and seemingly made by Benji Paysnoe. Here are the dinosaurs uploaded from the colouring book, there were more available, but I haven't uploaded those because we already had appropriate restorations of them. FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2026 (UTC)
They seem generally fine. Soft tissue for the feet on Gryposaurus seems a bit lacking, proportions on the Nanuqsaurus look off (big head, weirdly shaped arm), Chindesaurus and Anchisaurus have some disproportionate toe claws. I wouldn’t use the reconstructions of Alamosaurus, Agujaceratops, nor Ankylosaurus;
- The chest anatomy on the Alamosaurus is fundamentally incorrect
- Agujaceratops has theropod legs for some reason? And the cranial anatomy is not what would be expected
- Osteoderm arrangement and head shape are incorrect on Ankylosaurus, and it has four toes (derived ankylosaurs had 3 unless I’m mistaken), and it’s also missing the left leg
The California condor is still extant, so I question the need for an illustration. Ddinodan (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
I'll see if I can fix the Anchisaurus and Hadrosaurus, we have good equivalents of the rest, so they aren't as needed, and can just be tagged as inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2026 (UTC)
Supersaurus
.png)
_(cropped).png)
.png)
_(cropped).png)
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
