Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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 If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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

Various Dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy.

• 
  Albertosaurus
• 
  Lusotitan
• 
  Tenontosaurus
• 
  Emausaurus
• 
  Nigersaurus
• 
  Navaornis

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I have my doubts about the proportions of Albertosaurus, the legs especially seem very thick. Tenontosaurus also does not match most skeletal diagrams and mounts I've seen, and I'm curious what reference you used for Lusotitan and Emausaurus. I'd say the first two definitely need revisions, the last two I'm not sure about yet. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The leg proportions of the Albertosaurus are a little off, so it needs major revisions. The femur should be shorter in relation to the tibia and metatarsals. The Nigersaurus is good to use as far as I can tell. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Albertosaurus leg proportions adjusted. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

The Navaornis is good to use for me. Aventadoros (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reference taxon you used for Emausaurus? That series of nearly stegosaur-like osteoderms along the back seem highly speculative as compared to the known brackets Scutellosaurus and Scelidosaurus. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Toned down stegosaur-like osteoderms. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Irritator challengeri

Main references: skeletal reconstruction made by randomdinos and the skull reconstruction present on Schade et al. (2023) made by Olof Moleman.

Life restoration of the Brazillian spinosaurid Irritator challengeri

Sauroarchive (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Some revisions needed

Looks great overall, but I have a few points, mostly about the head.

Strong suggestion: So far as we can tell, spinosaurines don't seem to have as pronounced brows as baryonychines seem to have. Baryonychines have a rugose boss there that spinosaurines don't seem to. Though we don't have a lot of material. So perhaps more data in the future might show otherwise. The frontals are abraded on the sides, but the postorbital is nicely intact. And it doesn't show any obvious rugose boss. You've reconstructed it with a keratin brow here. It's cool and doesn't seem entirely impossible. But it is pure speculation and might be less likely since there's little to no rugosity there on the bone. And showing it without pronounced brows would make it better represent what we know about spinosaurines and Irritator.

Suggestion: Sadly we don't have most of the crest, so any shape is speculative. In the paper I reconstructed it very minimally to show it might be immature. I based the shape on Baryonyx for the most part as it's one of the better preserved ones. Here it seems you kept to my reconstructed outline. If it had a keratin crest, then it could have extended a bit beyond the bone. So, I don't think this crest is wrong perse, but potentially it could be larger. Not a deal breaker tho.

Needs fixing: Where the neck attaches to the top of the skull that doesn't seem to be correct and should be moved back a bit. Right now, the jaw muscles seem to merge with the neck muscles in a smooth transition. While we do not have the top of the parietal and supraoccipital, we do have the rest of the braincase and the base of the supraoccipital that gives us the angle of the missing part. The parietal meets the supraoccipital behind where the ear is now. Which is also where the neck muscles attach. So the area from behind the eye to the ear would not be that bulbous. This is probably the only issue that absolutely needs to be fixed, since it directly contradicts the known material.

Suggestion: Outside the skull we don't have any material that's definitely Irritator. The other spinosaurine material might be Irritator but we can't be sure at this time. But personally I think the hip dip is kinda speculative. The now likely destroyed pelvis from the area I don't think was well preserved enough to say clearly if it had a dip or not. Early reconstructions based on that certainly didn't give it a dip like Ichthyovenator. Based on North African spinosaurines it seems that the dorsal spines could have varied wildly with some very different shapes. A "normal" row of spines might be the safer option, since we don't know if the pelvis had damaged spines, and we don't know if it was Irritator.

Comments: The paddle tail seems reasonable and is fine. The only good tails from spinosaurines seem to have paddles. Lips is good so that it creates a mouth seal and can breathe through the nose. I thought the ear looked a little low, but comparing it to the skull, it seems to be in the correct place. Though maybe it's because the squamosal is a bit hidden. The mouth pouch is nice because it fits with the seemingly wide gulp. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

• Watermarks are discouraged, and don't look good when images are placed among others in for example cladograms. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

None of the issues raised seem like necessary revisions and seem to mostly be suggestions, so this looks like a pass to me. I don't have any objections to the skull reconstruction, which is the only area where rigorous criticism is warranted (given this taxon is only known from skull remains). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello guys, sorry for the delay on aswering. Thank you very much for the feedback @SuspiciousHadrosaur and @A Cynical Idealist. I'll definitely fix the most important ones and update it so you can revise it again! Sauroarchive (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Obelignathus UDL

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

---

Obelignathus

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

The body appears fine but there are major revisions needed for the skull. Here is a rough illustration of the "Quarante" skull that is phylogenetically close and has at times been referred to septimanicus, with the snout shortened to account for dentary length differences, but some major takeaways are the position of the eye and depth of the snout and naris that are absent in the only other published (2003) skull reconstruction of a rhabdodontoid. It ends up much more similar overall to Tenontosaurus, lacking the oddly low and central eye position that is seen here. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I think I need a little better of a reference. Can you point me to a clearer image, or maybe draw outlines over mine to show exactly what you mean? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This is a very very rough illustration of how the skull bones would fit into a full outline. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Adjusted facial proportions. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Obelignathus septimanicus

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

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Clarification requested - Why is it quadrupedal? Isn't that a tenontosaurid apomorphy? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

This follow Dieudonné et al. (2022). Ddinodan (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

A link for context. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I could be misunderstanding the paper, but it seems to suggest a shift from quadrupedality to bipedality through ontogeny in basal rhabdodontomorphs/iguanodontians, with rhabdodontids(oids?) being more fully quadrupedal. Is this recon supposed to be a juvenile individual? -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

"In sharp contrast, Late Cretaceous rhabdodontids would retain the juvenile quadrupedal stance of their ancestors, and maintain quadrupedality until their adulthood most probably through progenetic development."

From the abstract. Ddinodan (talk) 03:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

...right. And Obelignathus isn't a rhabdodontid. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:08, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Dieudonne doesn't use the same taxonomy as other studies so trying to apply the terms they use directly to the results here will not apply. For them, a non-rhabdodontid rhabdodontomorph is a taxon like Muttaburrasaurus, and a rhabdodontid would be a taxon like Obelignathus (as R. septimanicus in Dieudonne et al., 2016). Adding in Tenontosaurus as a rhabdodontomorph also gives more for a quadrupedal stance, so we should be able to follow that study pretty well to imply a quadrupedal stance is certainly possible in Obelignathus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks for the clarification. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Given the paper provided us a bipedal reconstruction, having one following the alternative model of rhabdodont movement is probably ideal. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Maleriraptor (UDL)

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

---

Maleriraptor

Please review for accuracy. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:03, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

It should have five toes on each of the feet. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The dewclaw of the left foot appears to sit higher on the metatarsal than that of the right foot? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Lowered left hallux, added tiny digit V on right foot. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me. The foot anatomy was my only issue. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Maleriraptor kuttyi

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

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Same comment as above, this should have five toes on each foot instead of four. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

How would this be made visible? The illustration follows the skeletal in the description from what I can see. The Morrison Man (talk) 07:07, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

There is a tiny digit V seen in the skeletal (and in the life reco of the paper, too), which is absent in the drawing. Also, the dewclaw seems to sit too high, at least in the right foot. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there consensus regarding herrerasaur fifth digits being externally visible? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there even anyone suggesting they were not visible? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Regardless, foot anatomy is adjusted. You can barely see it either way. I would imagine there is very little literature either way on if it was visible or not since it's such an inconsequential and underrepresented element, so either interpretation works, but it's there now. Ddinodan (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me. The foot anatomy was my only issue. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Yangchuanosaurus

Please review for accuracy.

Yangchuanosaurus

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Just comparing it to Dan's skeletal, the head seems a bit small and the arms too thin, the body might also be too short. Yangchuanosaurus has very odd proportions compared to most allosauroids Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Iren Dabasu Juvenile Tyrannosaur

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

---

I've made a reconstruction of the skull of the juvenile tyrannosaur (tyrannosaurid?) from the Iren Dabasu formation described by Carr (2022). This is my first attempt at making a reconstruction like this so there may be some mistakes but I figured I'd submit it for the Iren Dabasu page.

Reconstruction of the skull of AMNH FARB 6266, a juvenile tyrannosaur from the Iren Dabasu formation, known material highlighted in white.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Looks nice as far as i can tell. Carr calls it a Tyrannosaurid, so I think it's fair to call it that for now. The lacrimal and jugal are both from the left side but the quadratojugal is from the right side - might be worth noting that somehow but otherwise pass at least wrt the bones that are actually present in AMNH FARB 6266 Skye McDavid (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll give it a couple more days and then I'll post it if no one has any objections! Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Jinchuanloong niedu

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

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Pass, seems to match the known skull and general proportions seem as expected for a basal eusauropod. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:00, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Zhongyuansaurus junchangi

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

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a pass without comments, matches what is known of the taxon very well. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Jinchuanloong (UDL)

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

---

Please review for accuracy.

Jinchuanloong

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Pass. I don't see any glaring errors in the reconstruction, the skull is massive and the body is typical of eusaurpods. Aventadoros (talk) 21:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Taleta (UDL)

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

---

Please review for accuracy.

Taleta

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 07:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision.

Based on the preserved mummy of Brachylophosaurus ('Leonardo'), the upper part of the beak should have a much larger layer of keratin that obscures the lower part. Compare the appearance in Dan below. Aventadoros (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Keratin beak extended. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me, I don't think the beak keratin is really an issue if its based on Brachylophosaurus, which is not a particularly closely-related taxon. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Pass also for me. The presence of keratin is not so much an individual trait as a group trait. Both centrosaurs and chasmosaurs independently had keratin layers on their horns, so I see no reason why lambeosaurs and saurolophins would not have the same amount on their beaks. The overall structure of all hadrosaurs was similar, and the mummies of Brachylophosaurus and Edmontosaurus have a lot of keratin on their beaks. Aventadoros (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Taleta taleta

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

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Pass. To me the reconstruction looks correct, the upper part of the beak has a clearly visible layer of keratin. Aventadoros (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

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

Acheroraptor skull reconstruction

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

---

Did a skull reconstruction of Acheroraptor following Powers et al. 2022, filled in with Atrociraptor and Saurornitholestes.

Reconstruction of the skull of Acheroraptor temertyorum as a saurornitholestine, known material highlighted in white.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

This gets a pass from me, it matches the known material as well as I can discern. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Zuniceratops christopheri

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

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision — the horns appear to be way too long? Are they within the reasonable bounds for ceratopsian horn keratin extensions? 49.144.196.194 (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

No, the length of the horns is fine, and their size may also have been within the

range of individual variability. Aventadoros (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Still a bit of a mystery, but would the exoparia[1] have made the gap under the jugal horn less apparent? If so, would of course be an issue for all our ceratopsian restorations, but we have to start somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  If an exoparia did indeed appear here then the appearance would be rather correct, but in other reconstructions it should also appear, and its addition to the other graphics could take a lot of time. Aventadoros (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think that should be a reason not to include it here. Implementing new knowledge in reconstructions has never been held back because others would also need updating. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Reconstruction added to the Zuniceratops article. Aventadoros (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision: The overall appearance and body proportions are well reproduced, but the jugal is not visible enough. Compare the appearance of the jugal with the photo from the reconstructed skull.

• 
• 

Aventadoros (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Seems our comments are contradictory? FunkMonk (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

When writing my first comment, I did not pay attention to the exoparia that is most likely present. If it has been included, for me the reconstruction is correct. Aventadoros (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree with both comments asking for minor revisions. The reconstruction takes body proportions into account, the horns are within the range of individual variation/keratin sheath extension and I'd assume the exoparia is responsible for the visibility of the jugal being less than previously expected. It's a pass for me.The Morrison Man (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Various dinosaurs (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

• 
  Stellasaurus
• 
  Torvosaurus
• 
  Planicoxa
• 
  Gastonia
• 
  Arrhinoceratops

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• As noted above, wouldn't the exoparia[2] have made the gap under the jugal horn less apparent? FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision: I think implementing exoparia for ceratopsians would be a good idea. Besides, in Stellasaurus and Arrhinoceratops, there is no clear ridge connecting the jugal with the squamosal, behind which the ear should be located. It also seems to me that the Arrhinoceratops squamosal has 9 episquamosales when the holotype had 8, additionally the nostrils should be closer to the beak Aventadoros (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Exoparia added and ridge extended between jugal and squamosal in both ceratopsians.

Arrhinoceratops episquamosals reduced to 8, and nostril moved closer to the beak. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

No another comments, pass. Aventadoros (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Looking at other skeletal reconstructions of ceratopsians, I get the impression that the eye of Arrhinoceratops should be a little closer and more under the horn, rather than right next to the snout. For example, the skeleton of Triceratops

[3]

After correcting this should be pass. 2A00:F41:C88:AB2B:FDA4:67FC:ED1C:868F (talk) 08:28, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Arrhinoceratops eye moved closer to supraorbital horn. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay, pass for me, thanks for taking my earlier comment into account. 2A00:F41:C89:16C4:7914:90D7:629A:3DB0 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Torvosaurus gets a pass from me. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I have some questions about the general proportions and the skull. What reference was used? The Morrison Man (talk) 07:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

This is mainly what I used as a reference UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Any reason for the change in anatomy around the neck? The standard S-curve seems pretty reduced here. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Not particularly... I was repositioning it and that's just how it ended up. If it needs to be adjusted, I can, but somebody above already gave it the "pass". Does it seem out of natural positioning? UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@UnexpectedDinoLesson, if you have the opportunity, take another look at your ceratopsids as I noticed that many of them do not have a ridge connecting the jugal to the squamosal (at the moment, Nasutoceratops, Diabloceratops and Machairoceratops have clearly visible ones). I think adding exoparia would also be a nice addition, but I don't require you to make it the main focus of your work. 2A01:110F:304:E500:119C:375D:1E95:A1E2 (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll get to them gradually, but honestly it probably won't be a priority. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Acheroraptor size chart

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

---

I noticed the Acheroraptor page didn't have a size chart so I quickly made this one using Saurornitholestes to fill in the body.

Size of Acheroraptor temertyorum, one square equals one meter.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I noticed in the file description, but there should still be a scale bar directly on the image. A taxon label would also be preferrable. Do you have a source for the size of Acheroraptor? -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll add those, the size was achieved by directly scaling the skull elements to Gunnar's Saurornitholestes. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not doubting your ability to scale the silhouette, but this is where we can run into issues with Wikipedia's WP:NOR policies. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Fair, there seems to be a general consensus of it being about 2m in length, which this fits perfectly, but I can't seem to find an actual source for that. Sadly GSP mentions it in his book but doesn't give a size, I'll keep digging. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I found a source! Eofauna’s Facts and Figures: Theropods book gives it a length of 2.3 m and a hip height of 63 cm, which I’d say this fits nicely accounting for posture. Where should I add the citation, in the page itself? Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Acheroraptor is known from incomplete enough remains that anything around 2 meters is probably fine. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to say this, but I give this a pass. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I've added a scalebar and taxon name per comments, I've also made the tail a tad thicker and changed the way the tail fan attaches, as both were bothering me. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The updates look good, don't forget to italicize the species name. I know issues have been raised here with the Facts and Figures books as sources, but I don't care enough to reject the image's use (this size doesn't seem too controversial). The citation should be included in the Commons file description. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, will make that final change. As for the book, I don't think it's too big a deal as GSP's books are used and frankly I think the ideas therein are, if anything, more controversial. I don't think it matters though as I thought more about it and I feel like size charts don't need a source beyond the figures used, as you aren't actually coming to any new conclusions, if I were to include a length measure based on the chart that would probably count, but this simply feels like a different way of presenting information already provided in the description paper as it's simply based on scale bars within said paper. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 03:47, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

What does and doesn't count as 'original research' when it comes to paleoart on Wikipedia is complicated and one of the reasons we have the review pages in the first place. The general agreement seems to be that size charts (for Wiki purposes) need a source for body size; creating an silhouette scaled to paper scale bars (and hopefully measurements [4]) counts as original research (especially for a fragmentary taxon), especially if you're presenting it in the context of comparing its size to a human.
For the record, species name = binomial name (including the genus). After that correction I think the image can be passed. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Italicized the name and changed the citation to the book, I’m not sure I got the format right so feel free to correct it. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Hypnovenator size chart

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

---

Continuing the size charts, here's Hypnovenator.

Size of Hypnovenator matsubaraetoheorum, one square equals one meter.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Nitpicky comment but as mentioned above, the genus name also needs to be italicized. Other than that, the silhouette seems to be consistent with the taxon's published reconstruction so looks good to use. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Pass from me as well, I don't see any issues here. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Taleta by Nick Longrich

Reconstruction of the Taleta by Nick Longrich. Any comments or thoughts?

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

The linework over the shoulder and hip is probably a bit extreme but that can fall under artistic style and is certainly only a minor issue if that. Not much is known of the taxon and in general the anatomy lines up with other lambeosaurines with perhaps slightly short limbs (no close relatives have good limb material to be sure of proportions). I think its usable. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

• Should we perhaps have all of Longrich's other uploaded restorations reviewed here? Few of them have been. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you think, but for me, the upper part of the beak has too little keratin. I wrote a similar comment about Taleta (UDL). Aventadoros (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

It seems to have no nostrils or ear holes? And the proportions of the legs and body look off somehow, but I can’t put my finger on it. 49.144.196.194 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

According to information I saw on Discord, the colors were created using ChatGPT and were colored in the Studio Ghibli style, but I don't have a link to the original post. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that's a rumor and shouldn't impact how it is reviewed. Longrich has contributed art before, and even if he used AI to generate the color scheme, that shouldn't really matter. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good precedent to let any kind of AI modified art go into use. Not only are "Ghibli filters" highly immoral, but it could severely weaken precedents against more extensive usage of AI. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Granted, but I think its still hearsay. Do we have confirmation that that's what happened? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Reading some of what he's said about the reconstruction on facebook, it seems he used AI to colour in his lineart and then used that as a base for inspiration when it comes to colour palette and shading techniques. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I don’t think so. If you look closely at the sand you can see what’s obviously hand-made brush strokes with the “round brush” from Procreate (or a similar brush in another drawing program) 2001:4453:527:8500:79B4:E360:7EDC:B21B (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• I've added the rest of @NickLongrich:'s unreviewed palaeoart, though the last two have been on the review page in a mass-section before with little comment. FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

  Pass for Leptorhynchos, Albertonykus, Chenanisaurus, and the size diagrams; I don't see any obvious issues. Hesperonychus needs major revisions. The wing feathers are way too short and there don't appear to be any primaries attached to the second finger. Judiceratops needs revisions. The profile of the parietal does not match the figures from the paper describing it. This artwork has the parietal margin being mostly smooth and bowed outwards, but the paper depicts it as relatively flat and with a more pronounced indentation at the midline. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd say the eye of the Chenanisaurus is twice too large, and shouldn't the Leptorhynchos have primaries too? All evidence points to sizeable primaries in oviraptorosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with minutiae like eyeball size when the taxon isn't known from enough material to really comment on that. Chenanisaurus is just a dentary, and as long as the rest of the body doesn't deviate from the remains of other well-known taxa (in this case really just Majungasaurus), then its fine as far as I can tell. Regarding Leptorhynchos, it looks like it does have primaries, they're just not very long. The length of primaries in oviraptorosaurs is really only known from Caudipteryx, and they aren't very long. Perhaps the primaries here are a bit too short, but that's not really something that affects the drawing as a whole like it does for the Hesperonychus because dromaeosaur primaries are known to be well-developed and long from numerous taxa. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Eye size isn't really that variable in closely related taxa, so I don't think it's a valid excuse to ignore it, it certainly isn't minutiae any more than giving a theropod huge feet if none of its relatives have it. As for the primaries, apart from Caudipteryx, we know oviraptorosaurs covered their eggs with the arms, which has been strongly implied was due to long wing feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 21:24, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

• I think Fail for the Nicorhynchus; it's hard to tell with the low resolution, but the frontmost teeth appear to come out at an angle from the margin of the deltoid process (the flat front of the snout) and the actual palate, when they are very distinctly rooted on the deltoid process in coloborhynchines like Nicorhynchus. Given this is one of the most distinguishing traits of coloborhynchines compared to other anhanguerians and Nicorhynchus is only known from snout tips, this is an unacceptably fatal error for a reconstruction and using this would only confuse the reader. It's possible this could be fixed with an edit to the image, but given the highly sketch-like nature of the reconstruction I don't know if that's really worthwhile. Leptostomia matches the scantly known material fine and is a Pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Could be easily edited, as I don't think anyone is going to bother making a restoration of that taxon anytime soon anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe if it was cropped - the front of the snout is hardly in focus when it's not only the only region known from the taxon, but from any coloborhynchine. Probably responsible to exclude the postcranium. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:27, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Cetiosauriscus

Posting for review for upload to Wikipedia article

EnnieNovachrono (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

This gets a pass from me. The neural spines on the anterior caudals may be too tall, but that could be chalked up to soft tissue. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Khankhuuluu size, skeletal, and skull

• 
  Scale
• 
  Skeletal
• 
  Skull

Size of Khankhuuluu compared to a human, generally following the published skeletal reconstruction. Comments appreciated, -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

• Throwing in a skeletal reconstruction as well as the isolated skull recon. Some of it relies on scans of Perle's 1977 illustrations for bones that were not described by Voris et al. (maxilla, dentary, jugal), so I used gradients to indicate some uncertainty. The size chart silhouette has also been updated; it uses the size of the smaller referred specimen which more closely matches the estimates used in the press (I was unsure if including the holotype as well might violate OR). Comments appreciated as always. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  Creating composite diagrams doesn't violate WP:NOR. There's a special clause (WP:OI) which states the main disqualifier for images is if they "illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". As long as anything incorporated to these diagrams is published in the literature, they can be combined in a single image. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Khankhuuluu (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

Khankhuuluu

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Three fingers doesn't seem very parsimonious for such a derived tyrannosauroid. Proportions also look off to me; this thing has long legs and I don't really see reflected here. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 05:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Lengthened legs, reduced manual digit III and removed claw. UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 18:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

This gets a pass from me. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Khankhuuluu mongoliensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

I see no major issues. This gets a pass from me. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. For me also looks good. Aventadoros (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

• Also appears to have three fingers, which was pointed out as inaccurate in the section above? FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

  Three clawed digits isn't very parsimonious; two clawed digits and a reduced third (which this reconstruction has) is a bit more expected of a derived tyrannosauroid, and is what the authors include in their skeletal. Ddinodan (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Astigmasaura genuflexa

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Pass. I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Blue Lias and Sarcosaurus woodi size charts

A size chart of the Blue Lias formation and a size chart of Sarcosaurus as a relative of Dilophosaurus and Sinosaurus.

Size chart of archosaurs from the Blue Lias Formation.

A size chart of two known specimens of Sarcosaurus woodi. In the grid, one square equals one meter.

Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 00:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Pass looks good to me. The restoration of Sarcosaurus is larger than the figures we currently have, but I think the incompleteness of the remains makes either size plausible. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Ancestor of Chicken

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

---

Created by User:Turtletickler123 as part of en:Wikipedia:AP Biology 2025 and added to en:Red junglefowl without review. Depicts member of Coelurosauria that the uploader believes to be direct ancestor of the modern Chicken. —Hubcapp (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Fail. It's a very simplistic and misleading view. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The image of the “Coelurosaurian” is clearly a cartoonized version of this Bonapartenykus by Abel G. Montes, which is unattributed. Sadly it’s a common occurrence — anyone can draw their own original versions of popular dinosaurs, but obscure ones are frequently uncritically traced or copied in pose, colors, and/or speculative features from preexisting images (thankfully not on Wikipedia — except for this case). 2001:4453:527:8500:D6D:FDE4:96C:A588 (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Astigmasaura (UDL)

Please review for accuracy.

Astigmasaura

UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Pass I don't see any issues with this reconstruction. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:19, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Eocarcharia size and skull(s)

• 
  Size
• 
  Skulls

A couple diagrams for the recently expanded Eocarcharia page, following the reinterpretation of the holotype as a spinosaurid and other publications recognizing the taxon's chimaeric nature. Comments appreciated, -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

PASS: Got immediate no complaints in terms of skull anatomy. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 09:41, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Suchomimus

Newly uploaded and not used yet. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Skeletal diagrams of Suchomimus seem to vary considerably in the relative lengths of the arms and legs. Scott Hartman's skeletal has much shorter legs, as does the chimeric diagram from Sereno et al 2022. Other reconstructions have legs of similar length to this reconstruction, but its unclear to me how rigorous those are. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Triceratops prorsus

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

---

[[File:Triceratops_prorsus_-_IZE-Gemini-3.png|thumb]]

Someone added this to the Triceratops article today, but needs review. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Fail. Not only does it looks very much like an AI-generated image, but the source of the image (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zachievenor/54602431978/) confirms that is indeed the case. It doesn't match the anatomy of Triceratops anyway. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: The Hebrew version of Triceratops page has multiple AI-generated images incorporated/cited within the article by the same user. https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%A1 Junsik1223 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

I removed it from our Triceratops article now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Fail and we have to deletion request for it either way. The political stance of this user is beyond the scope of this article, but adding such an image would be inappropriate anyway. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Just started c:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Triceratops_prorsus_-_IZE-Gemini-3.png. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Fail for AI. See the unanimous agreement to ban AI "paleoart" here. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I intended no harm. I thought it was reasonable and a good basis for modifications. There are far worse paleoart images in Commons. I didn't know about the AI ban policy. I ask for its speedy deletion. MathKnight 10:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

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

Chirostenotes pergracilis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Needs revisions. In the "Macrophalangia" specimen (CMN 8538), the hallux is much longer, reaching the distal end of the first phalanx of the second digit when drawn to it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Dryptosaurus aquilunguis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

The hand and leg proportions are correct, which reflects the only known material from this taxon. I give this a pass. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Sinotyrannus kazuoensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Add a comment here for all three reconstructions. All of them are correct and I approve them for use. Aventadoros (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Which sources did you use to reconstruct the skull? I haven't seen a reconstruction that incorporates the nasal boss and the supraorbital bosses into a single structure. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I believe their proximity is variable between individuals and they are quite close together in a number of P. canadensis skulls. Though it would be good to know what its based on exactly. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

@A Cynical Idealist, @The Morrison Man It was based on the Dan Folkes skeletal (The Drumheller specimen) [5]. I also will add next comment, because it needs (maybe 2) minor fixes. Aventadoros (talk) 09:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Time for a minor revision:

1. Pachyrhinosaurus, like other centrosaurines, had structures on their skulls called rostral nasal scales, squamosal and parietal scales row, whose presence was demonstrated by Hieronymus et al. 2009. They are missing in this reconstruction; Figure 12 shows what they look like and where they should be located. [6]

2. The contact between the squamosal and parietal bones appears to be invisible. Centrosaurines were characterised by a stepped contact between these bones, so this should also be corrected. It is well reproduced in the work of Fiorillo and Tykoski (2024) (Figure 9) [7]

3. In my opinion, the epijugal (small horn on the jugal) should be a little larger and more visible. While exoparia may limit the visibility of the jugal, it should not affect the epijugal. Aventadoros (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

1. The nasal scales are continuous with the nasal boss, similar to P. perotorum. Parietal scales are also included at the two preserved areas of the skull where they would be indicated. Squamosal scale locations aren’t well indicated in Pachyrhinosaurus, with no preserved indication spots in the Drumheller specimen of P. canadensis, the specimen referenced here.

2. The contact between these elements is drawn as distinct here, to the degree it is shown by the Drumheller skull.

3. Your opinion on the size of this element doesn’t constitute critique; this element is also not preserved on the Drumheller skull. Ddinodan (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The fact that squamosal scales were not preserved in the Drumheller specimen does not change the fact that other individuals of Pachyrhinosaurus lakustai, as presented in the work of Hieronymus et al. 2009, and other centrosaurines such as Centrosaurus, Wendiceratops and Furcatoceratops also had them. Scales on the skull are a general feature of centrosaurines, so I believe that the reconstruction should include them. As for the two previous comments, they can be ignored, because you are right, but I will not change my opinion about the squamosal scales. Aventadoros (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2025 (UTC)