The usual comment, as half of these are multispecific genera (and one is in flux); always include the specific names in the descriptions, otherwise they are hard to use. FunkMonk (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
FunkMonk is right. Vague dinosaur species names make it difficult to use reconstructions. Judging by the appearance of Protoceratops it is a type species of P. andrewsi. I don't see the two teeth on the premaxilla that it had. The nostrils should be closer to the beak, similar to the other cerstopsians you have done. Additionally, the frills of protoceratopsids were undulating and Protoceratops should have them. The lower part of the beak should be gently flattened to make the snout look open. This information comes from the publication by Chiba et al. 2023. When doing the armour in Ankylosaurus, did you suggest the reconstruction from the Arbour and Mallon 2017 publication? I will send photos of the protoceratops frills by email.
The beak of Gryposaurus looks rather strange, I do not see a keratinous coating on the upper part overlapping the lower part. This issue has not yet been resolved in Parasaurolophus with its crest (I mean as a species P. tubecin). Earlier, the appearance of the beak was more precisely addressed by FunkMonk in the Adelolophus section. In my opinion, these reconstructions represent the appearance of the beak very well. [2][3][4][5]
In my opinion, you should now concentrate on improving the current reconstructions rather than creating new ones (the exception may be the newly described ones). The more new reconstructions you have, the harder it is to improve the old ones. I think for the moment it would be worthwhile to focus on improving beaks in hadrosaurids, removing the parascapular spike in Dacentrurus, clarifying the species name in Tarcha and correct ear hole in your Pachyrhinosaurus (closer as have your ceratopsids).
Skeletal diagram for the new sauropodomorph, mostly using Riojasaurus as a base. I also included the fibula fragment that was initially found but then lost due to poor preservation, since it is included in the paper's figure. However, if it is preferred to have it excluded, I can do that. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks a little front-heavy? Maybe the tail posture. The femur drawing also seems a bit thicker than figure A2, particularly around the level of the trochanters. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
A lot of sauropodomorphs almost seem front-heavy no matter how you pose them. I rotated the body up so it looks a little more stable. Is that any better? I also slightly redrew part of the femur, so it should line up with the figure better. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Lips are controversial, even though I would favor lips. Bigger issue is the occlusion of the dentary by maxillary teeth. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Suchomimus tenerensis updated reconstruction
Suchomimus life reconstruction
New one
Hello. I did a Suchomimus tenerensis reconstruction based on fossil ilustrations of MNN GDF 500 (holotype) and MNN GF501, Dan folkes skeletal (2023) and the digital skeletal reconstruction of Suchomimus from the ''Spinosaurus is not a aquatic dinosaur'' study by Sereno et al., 2022. I think it looks great and more accurate and updated to our interpretation of this taxon than the one old reconstruction that was in the page and the new one they placed in. So what do you think? What should I do to get it reviewd? Sauroarchive (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
So this is mine reconstruction I'm talking about by the way
In addition to the tail being too short, the neural spines above the sacrum and back look too short.[6] In this regard, the restorations used in the article are more accurate. The antorbital fenestra also seems sunken. FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Lips, the gape is just used based on the book "Jurassic Park Institute Dinosaur Field Guide" as some of the theropods still have a gape regardless of oral tissue. --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
What I mean is that the lower jaw and it's lips seem to be jutting more towards the front than the upper jaw, which looks unnatural. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Does it seem likely that the legs would attach to the body with skin so far down? Seems to be almost below the knee. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The only case where metacarpals IV and V appear to be significantly displaced from the others among those taxa is Hypsilophodon. To my knowledge Mahuidacursor is the only (sensu stricto) elasmarian with a preserved manus [15], and it does not show this. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Featherless Coelopysis is unlikely. Feathers are ancestral to Dinosauria so being completely featherless as depicted is unlikely in a small animal so close to the base of Dinosauria. See also Hartman et al 2022 thermoregulatory modeling of Triassic Amniotes, modeling Coelophysis as feathered. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Here’s an Agrosaurus macgillivrayi I’ve made in Procreate. It’s based on Jaime Headden’s Thecodontosaurus (which may be a senior synonym) and in terms of style I was inspired by both Ddinodan and Raingerr. What do you think?
(P.S. would this file be better transparent, with a white background, or should there be two versions, one transparent and one with a background?) Atlantis536 (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The skull seems much more robust than Thecodontosaurus. Any particular reason? Also, I'm not sure the first digit would've been habitually flexed like that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I edited the skull to be less robust after rechecking Jaime Headden’s skeletal, fixed the positioning of the hand claws, and added longer lines on the legs. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Some general comments that may apply to multiple of these:
I personally prefer white backgrounds rather than transparent, but either way I certainly wouldn't do two versions—that could get messy.
Obviously in life the legs wouldn't be clearly delineated all the way to the pelvis, but there would still have been visible separate musculature. That isn't really apparent in many of these, with the legs appearing to emerge from the abdomen.
When reconstructing the "farther" manus (right on these images) for bipeds, more attention should be given to the claws/fingers. The soft tissue "pad" should probably be reconstructed as obscuring the base of the claw there. Otherwise it looks like the claws emerge from a symmetrical stump, which isn't exactly realistic.
I noticed there’s no images of Agustinia ligabuei on Commons except for an inaccurate reconstruction by Nobu Tamura, so I made this. It’s based on Bellardini et al. 2022, which reinterprets the taxon as a rebbachisaurid. I used an unpublished skeletal by Gunnar Bivens as the base, adding beak tissue based on Lavocatisaurus and a yellowish color based on Diplodocus sp. as reported at SVP 2023. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The skeletal in the paper seems more schematic than rigorous, and as such I'm not sure it should be followed 100%. For instance, the form of the skull and the position of the nostril... Also, the hindlimb claws seem to project from the foot ventrally, and I feel that the osteoderms should perhaps be closer to the midline. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Definitely agree that the paper's skeletal shouldn't be used as a reference for Abditosaurus (or any other titanosaur, for that matter). I've lost track of how many times it has been used in the literature (e.g. [16][17][18][19]), and it's never been modified to actually represent the relevant fossil material. That said, the phylogenetic position of Abditosaurus appears to be unstable, so as long as it is restored as a "generic" titanosaur it shouldn't be too much of a issue. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The claws were supposed to be drawn like that, referencing how sauropod hind toes point outwards. That said, I did made them look less obviously jutting out, along with moving the osteoderms. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
My first non-sauropodomorph—this is Antrodemus valens, a theropod that may just be a synonym of Allosaurus. As such, it is depicted as a generic allosaurid theropod based on a skeletal by Franoys. Any thoughts, comments, or feedback? Atlantis536 (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Here is a reconstruction of Aoniraptor libertatem, a mysterious theropod, as a megaraptoran, using Ashley Patch’s Australovenator as a base. This follows its original description and most studies including it. Any comments, thoughts, or feedback?
I'm not sure about the lip situation here. Even modern reconstructions of lipped theropods often show at least the tips of the largest teeth. Until Cau's results (and "Bahariasauridae" in general) gain any support, it would be best to refrain from creating a version following that for Wikipedia. The legs are also definitely not the same size... -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I drew the lips in such a way that even the biggest teeth are covered — I even checked the skeletal to make sure. I also lengthened the leg. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Here’s a reconstruction of Apatodon mirus as an allosaurid theropod, after George Olshevsky’s identification of it as a synonym of Allosaurus. Yes, it’s just a minorly edited version of the Antrodemus above, and that’s because as possible close relatives or conspecifics, they would have likely not varied too much. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
as for why I made this — I have a project in userspace where I’m putting an image of every dinosaur accompanied by its description paper. The images I’ve uploaded (and will upload) here are for that project, representing the dinosaurs that have no standalone images of themselves, whether life reconstructions or fossil images. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
But wouldn't photos or drawings of the holotypes be much more appropriate for such a list? These life restorations have little to do with the description papers that you list. The list is interesting but quite unconventional – if you plan to eventually move the list into article main space, I suggest to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs as early as possible. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I was going to modify an old sketch into something useful, and saw it could fit Santanaraptor, which has no proper restoration. Here it's modified to match that[20], should of course have feathers and so on, it's just a base drawing. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Given that it's only known from a foot and it's phylogenetic position isn't certain, I'm not sure how insightful a life restoration would be. The mount that is currently used in the article is incredibly speculative, and it would be better to be replaced with a drawing of the foot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's of course an entire discussion in itself, but I think every valid genus warrants a restoration that will give the reader some general idea of what the animal in question could have looked like in life. In this particular case, if made generic enough, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether it ends up being classified as a sort of basal maniraptoran or an early tyrannosaur (or heck, even a nosasaur), the restoration wouldn't really be too different either way. So no proceratosaurid-like crest, and the fingers can be made shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Just adding a note that I'll return to this soon, so it isn't automatically archived. A slightly updated version with feather outlines:[21]FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Finally finished this up with colour, after adjusting some features following comments on the Discord server. Pinging Aventadoros who commented there, and Lythronaxargestes usually also has something to say about animals in this part of the tree. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I guess that's due to the maniraptoran starting point, but I'd like to keep it as "generic" as possible to also go as other interpretations. I'm not entirely sure what the range of motion would be for more basal clades, should the hands jut straight out of the wrists to be safe? FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't know of that figure, in the meantime I had updated it to something that seems similar, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Correct in which way (it's not preserved)? I just noticed a much more serious issue, in the actual fossil the middle toe is much longer than the outer toes, so I'll have to shorten those... FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The proportions and poses of the ceratopsians seem very odd overall. The tip-toeing Monoclonius also has a massive lower jaw, while the others seem to have way too small skulls. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The frills also appear to be fully perpendicular to the spinal cord in several of the reconstructions, which would not have been the case. The frills are also just generally too small, especially the one on Xenoceratops. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
All these ceratopsids are incorrect. Bad body proportions, too thick tails, badly reconstructed frills, especially Medusaceratops or Xenoceratops. It seems to me that Glyptodon is the best made. Aventadoros (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Pamparaptor is only known from a foot, so it's not exactly helpful here. Buitreraptor seems to be the only unenlagiine known from sufficiently complete arms, which are longer than what is depicted in this image. However, Austroraptor is typically reconstructed with much shorter arms (similar to here), but only a humerus is preserved. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
The paper makes the point that its humeral anatomy is more similar to Austroraptor than smaller unenlagiines, but they did still choose to reconstruct it with longer arms. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
This restoration of Baalsaurus mansillai is based on Gunnar Bivens’ Bonitasaura, a possible close relative. It incorporates beak tissue as hypothesized for Bonitasaura and a yellowish color similar to that hypothesized for Diplodocus as a speculative reflection of convergent evolution between diplodocoids and “antarctosaurid” titanosaurs. Atlantis536 (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Dentary deepened slightly. As for the osteoderms, they are based on the lognkosaur Mendozasaurus; Antarctosaurus, which is similar to Baalsaurus, has been recovered as a relative of lognkosaurs in the Jiangshanosaurus redescription, so it’s possible that “antarctosaurids” had similar osteoderms. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
“Beipiaognathus jii” is a chimaeric taxon, and this reconstruction represents the real animal represented by the holotype without the artificially placed additions. It is reconstructed as a “compsognathid”-type coelurosaur based on Scott Hartman’s Compsognathus with coloration inspired by Sinosauropteryx. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I can accept the tooth taxon restorations but I think this one goes too far for me. Cau never said that there was a real underlying basal coelurosaur specimen with additions; instead, his blog post (or its translation, anyway) suggests that the entire specimen is a hodge-podge of small pieces. He only commented about the affinities of the appendicular material, and in doing so identified pennaraptoran apomorphies. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, looks like I misremembered. Checking my sources again I found that Mickey Mortimer identified the arms as belonging to an Ornitholestes-like animal, and as such placed it at the base of Tyrannoraptora in his tree. I’ll edit the description to make that more clear. Atlantis536 (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
My understanding is that the cervical half-rings would've been buried underneath skin. I think this style also creates the impression that the osteoderms were simpler than they were in real life; I would at least use outlines to suggest the presence of caputegulae. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 11:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Brachypodosaurus gravis is a mysterious Indian taxon that is all but ignored in the literature. The most recent review (done in 1977!) considered it a possible ankylosaur without comment. If this assignment is correct, it may be a parankylosaur, since India was part of Gondwana in the Cretaceous and parankylosaurs are likely the only ankylosaurs known from Gondwana. This hasn’t been explicitly suggested in the literature though, so this reconstruction, while based primarily on Stegouros, is generalized so that it could be seen as any type of ankylosaur. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to be blunt here. This image is quite problematic for several reasons, and it raises concerns about much of the series you are creating. Per a recent published comment, the Brachypodosaurus specimen can not even be confidently regarded "as a humerus (or any other kind of bone)". As such, reconstructing it as an ankylosaur (especially given that even its ornithischian affinities are questioned)—and particularly a possible parankylosaur—blatantly crosses WP:NOR (from WP:OI, the principle of "no OR" is that "unpublished ideas or arguments" are not "illustrate[d] or introduce[d]" on Wikipedia). Your approach for this particular image ("based on Stegouros" but "generalized so that it could be seen as any type of ankylosaur") is also an example of the flaw of averages; by creating a "generalized" body plan, you are introducing yet another baseless original concept. Please keep in mind that not every dinosaur needs (or should have) a life restoration on Commons. Per COM:EV, uploaded media needs to be useful for education. An extremely speculative image like this is not. As has already been mentioned, the most useful and informative media for this kind of taxon would be a non-speculative representation of the actual fossil material. Quite frankly, if you want to assemble a gallery of images of controversial, obscure taxa like this—even for a personal userspace project—Wikipedia is not the place for it. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This is a strange approach to picking a color or pattern. Why should two distinct genera from geographically disparate locations, separated by more than 10 million years, have such a similar appearance? Of course, most viewers probably won't care or notice unless the two are shown together, but the logic is fallacious nonetheless. The same applies to other previous images: Bissektipelta (probable coloration for one nodosaurid does not equate similar colors for every other ankylosaur), Beipiaognathus (why should it be restored with a tail ring pattern, just because it's a "compsognathid"?), Agustinia (a rebbachisaurid) and Baalsaurus (a titanosaur!) (one specimen attributed to Diplodocus sp. has melanosomes suggestive of "ginger or yellow". Again, while the colors used for these genera are not inherently problematic, they should not be chosen under the current logic.), etc. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The colors of Baalsaurus are a speculative reflection of convergent evolution between “antarctosaurids” and diplodocids, similar to what Macrophyseter did with his Plesiotylosaurus (giving the mosasaurine a Tylosaurus nepaeolicus-like countershading since the two are phylogenetically distant yet convergently similar). As for why I chose similar colors for distant relatives—it’s because the fossil dinosaurian color record is wildly incomplete, there’s not a lot to base color on (for example, we only have one color record for sauropodomorphs, coming from a diplodocid, so I thought it would be logical that at least diplodocoids and possibly some diplodocoid-mimics would look similar) Atlantis536 (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
“Brohisaurus kirthari” is a potential titanosauriform, which is why I reconstructed it after Gunnar Bivens’ Brachiosaurus. It also holds the dubious distinction of being the only validly named non-avian dinosaur from Pakistan (described in a peer-reviewed journal in an article stating it is a new genus and species with a diagnosis) Atlantis536 (talk) 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
square decimeters are a very unintuitive unit to use, especially since the Fylax looks like a 50x50 cm square which would be 25dm², not 5dm². If these are to be used, the scale should be corrected and changed to meters or centimeters Skye McDavid (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
removed the Fylax from enwiki page because the scale is clearly wrong. I think this deserves an inaccurate paleoart tag until the scale is fixed, and same goes for the Meglosaur Skye McDavid (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Attached are restorations of Guanlong and some updated size comparisons of many proceratosaurs. I have already had approved/added some for Sinotyrannus and Yutyrannus, these are just the others.
I plan on editing the visual stuff for the Proceratosaurs as well, mainly the actual material of each aswell as updated restorations like crania reconstructions and more.
SirBlameson (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
The Proceratosaurus size comparison also seems better than the one we have already. Some of us have been planning to expand that article, any chance of a life restoration without background unlike the one we have already? FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking through the graphics by ABelov2014, I saw an image showing dinosaurs from the Judith River Formation and on it was a reconstruction of Medusaceratops. All those that currently rearrange Medusaceratops are incorrect and I think it can be replaced with this one. Do you have any comments? Or maybe some paleoartist might want to make this dinosaur?
Could certainly be added to the article in any case if it's overall correct. The other dinosaurs shown should be named and categorised in the file too. Makes you wonder when someone will suggest that all these albertoceratopsins from the same formation will be considered simply individual variation... FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, I will name the other dinosaurs that are on the reconstruction and add a category. Medusaceratops is correct and has the frill appearance from the publication by Chiba et al. (2018). I will not be surprised if Lokiceratops is recognised as a synonym of Medusaceratops. Aventadoros (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Life reconstruction of enantiornithine birds feeding
Sometime ago I uploaded a reconstruction of feeding enantiornithine birds, but it doesn't have review. Does anyone have any comments? If no, I will put it into articles.
Restorations published in journals usually don't need review unless we suspect something is wrong with them. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
You're right, but just to be sure, I wanted to post this reconstruction. However, in publications you get strange graphics like the Dornraptor reconstruction or the skeletal Lokiceratops having too big a skull. Aventadoros (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Anatomy based on the published material, with unknown elements following Huayangosaurus (most similar anatomically to the known material) and other basal stegosaurs such as Tuojiangosaurus and Gigantspinosaurus.
The artwork is nice, but there’s already a drawing of it by Ddinodan. The people here seem to be prefer Ddinodan’s work whenever they have to choose between him or others’, so I doubt yours will get to be used. (Don’t let this discourage you, though; you can still draw other new discoveries as long as Ddinodan doesn’t get to them first.) 2001:4453:5A0:E500:85C4:BD28:2114:3E09 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
What a strange comment to make. Both artists have different styles but typically produce high quality work regardless. There is no reason why multiple restorations of the same taxon should be dissuaded. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Does this Baiyinosaurus have dermal plates or spines on its back? I don't know what it is, but it looks very similar to the spikes from the tail, only smaller. Aventadoros (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Baiyinosaurus skeletal + skull
Skeletal
Skull
Skeletal and skull reconstructions for Baiyinosaurus. Unfortunately no measurements for the cranial material, but the vertebral measurements lined up well with the scale bars. Comments appreciated (especially on the skull, since the published one is...not usable). -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
So, I've got nothing to share yet but I'm preparing a new illustration for Concavenator (lineart ready to go) which has been on standby for a very long time. I'm here to address some topics about this taxon before finishing this restoration in order to avoid controversy, for example, the ulnar bumps. I know that there have been several anatomical descriptions after its initial publication, however, the bumps remain inconclusive (at least from 2018 onwards). On the assumption that these were attachment sites for protofeathers, or quill structures like those of cassowaries, I think that something like Manusuchus's restoration would make sense, with a thin covering of feathers. On the contrary, if these were attachment sites of quill-like structures like those of basal dinosaurs, a mostly featherless restoration should work. Based on the insane combination of scaly patterns and protofeathers of Kulindadromeus though, I really don't know how far things can be restricted from each other... And I think that deserves a second thought, regardless of whether these taxa are from different groups, as it was once assumed that feathers belonged exclusively to Coelurosauria. One last issue is the elevation of the dorsal and caudal vertebrae. In the original description the sail-like structure is said to have no modern analogues or whatsoever, and the function is not entirely discussed. Fidalgo in her doctor thesis concludes that it represents a caudal hump similar to camels, based on myological reconstruction and overall comparative anatomy. Many paleoart depicts Concavenator with the sail unconnected, almost M-shaped. The included restoration by Raúl Martin in the original description depicts the taxon with a fully connected sail. I'd like to know what is the best move here and what to add into the reconstruction, Concavenator is quite a tricky taxon. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
If we want to interpret the ulnar bumps as attachment sites for quills, they would have to be some pretty prominent quills, otherwise there wouldn't be need for strong attachment sites in the bone itself, and not ust downy fuzz. As for a connected hump, since there is already published precedence for it as you post, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind is that the high point of the hump is fully anterior to the sacrum. The sacral vertebrae are dorsally constrained by the curvature of the iliac crest, so the spinous processes did not exceed the height of the ilium. A lot of reconstructions will place the high point in the hump directly over the hips, which is incorrect. The humps of camels are anchored to spinous processes that are continuous in height (i.e. without any "dips" like in Concavenator) and so my personal opinion is that the life reconstruction should be restored without any speculative soft tissue structures between the two humps. The source of this confusion probably stems from the fact that Concavenator has not yet received a full osteological description, and once that gets published, this controversy may be resolved. Until such a time however, I think it would be more appropriate to avoid "filling in" the hump.
Regarding the integument, it's noteworthy that the holotype of Pelecanimimus preserves scale impressions but no feathers. However, as an ornithomimosaur, it is assumed that all ornithomimosaurs had feathers. This has been suggested to be reflective of some taphonomic phenomenon that has failed to preserve feathers. As far as I know, this hasn't been formally suggested in the literature, so it's hearsay at this point, so the presence of feathers is within reason (probable in my personal opinion), but not strictly necessary. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Aight, the feather covering may not be that controversial after all. One thing that remains divided is the hump/sail. I'm still not convinced whether it should be connected or not and even though I think that it somehow would look more natural as a whole structure, I don't want to get my personal taste involved. Though the situation is tricky, maybe it's best to leave the sail (calling it sail and not hump) unconnected with a minimal amount of volume/tissue/skin in both dorsal and caudal elevations. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I definitely agree that it would look better as a single sail/hump, but I would generally err on the side of caution for restorations intended for WP specifically. If it's been formally suggested in the literature then its a coin toss I'd say. My main point was just to make sure that the placement of the sail is correct (i.e. it begins with the anterior dorsal vertebrae). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
On a side note, I'm not sure why an unfeathered ornithomimid head would be indicative of no feathers, when we have plenty of birds today with naked heads. FunkMonk (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
And there's not a single bird alive that is completely featherless, not even fully-aquatic birds, which seems to indicate that feathers, once they evolve, are difficult or disadvantageous to lose. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Overall it is well made, but I noticed that it has four episquamosales when it should have three. The tail in my opinion is too thick and too short. It also has no scales running through the middle of the parietal bone and on the squamosal. See 'official reconstructions' [26]. [27]Aventadoros (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The tail is just fine.
There is no indication on the skull for a presence of large scales running through the middle of the parietal/squamosal as done in the "official reconstructions".
As for the scales on the skull, representatives of the Ceratopsidae generally had them, but in the case of Lokiceratops they are not visible on the skull reconstruction, although their addition would not be a glaring error. I noticed, the asymmetrical appearance of the epiparietals was added on the reverse see skull reconstruction and this should be corrected.
I concur regarding the scale rows - parsimony suggests their presence in all centrosaurines [28] unless there is evidence to the contrary, and Loewen et al. do not explicitly comment otherwise. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, also with this team advising the restorations, I'd say there is pretty strong published precedence for showing the same scalation. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
File is now updated. Edited the epiparietals and added the scales. I'm not going to be updating the file further unless there is a major anatomical error, so any further edits can either be made by someone else, or another persons artwork can be used. Ddinodan (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks very great, but in my opinion limbs are too thick. FunkMonk and Lythronaxargestes what are you think about this? Comparing the limb proportions to the reconstructions done by UDL (eg. his Nasutoceratops or Menefeeceratops), the limbs of Lokiceratops are much more massive. It also seems to me that the tail in the proximal part is further too thick and gives the impression that it is shorter than in the Nasutoceratops and Menefeeceratops reconstructions shown below. As another example, I will give Lokiceratops cisiopurple's [29]
BTW As for the presence of scales on the frill in other representatives of the Centrosaurinae it is highly likely that they all had them, so their reference to Lokiceratops is fully justified. Aventadoros (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The limbs here are not too large. The base musculature is based on Matt Dempsey's musculature studies on ceratopsians - if anything I've made the arms on the more slender side. The artworks you've posted here look more like direct skeletal traces silhouette and all (the Menefeeceratops matches up almost perfectly with the publication skeletal outside of the tail being raised), which ignores majority of the soft tissue which would've been present.
I would also suggest that anatomical edits being suggested starting with "In my opinion" and then just comparing to another artist isn't beneficial in the context of this edit. Ddinodan (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I am familiar with Matt Dempsey's muscle reconstruction. Then I no longer have any reservations about your reconstruction. Let me come back to the scales on the frill. In the publication on Furcatoceratops (Ishikawa et al., 2023) there are 4 visible on the scaly bone in Fig. 8, which may say their presence also in more basal centrosaurines. Next, Wendiceratops (Evans and Ryan, 2015) figure 7, these scales are also present on the ridge, which is located on the squamosal. Based on these and the previously mentioned work by Hieronymus et al. (2009) the addition of these structures is justified. Aventadoros (talk) 17:26, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I saw it. By the way could you also make a new reconstruction of Medusaceratops? The current reconstruction in the article is not correct. Good references for Medusaceratops has GetAwayTrike [30]Aventadoros (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Personally I'd draw something in between, but I'm sure their bulkiness would have varied across individuals, seasons, age, sex, etc., so I'm not sure any of these are necessarily incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I forgot to say one thing that needs to be improved in Lokiceratops, more specifically the skin. It should have polygonal scales on it, see carefully for yourself the photos of the preserved skin impressions. You did an excellent job of this earlier in Triceratops.
Also, the jugal in Triceratops should be more triangular with the epijugal visible. These are the last issues to be corrected. Aventadoros (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll assume the Triceratops skull is based on a specimen, but I don't think the scales need to be added either. Seems like too much detail for the purpose the image fullfills. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Fona & Comptonatus
Fona is reconstructed using the available material and using Oryctodromeus for what's missing.
Comptonatus is reconstructed using the available material and using Mantellisaurus for what's missing.
Not a huge fan of every single non-cerapod neornithishian being illustrated with the exact same feather/scale pattern as Kulindadromeus when they would definitely have had some variation but I can't say that's inaccurate on any individual reconstruction. Otherwise looks fine as far as I can tell Skye McDavid (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Coahuilaceratops
Skull reconstruction.
Life restoration.
NT's life restoration on the article.
Skull cast on the article.
Ok, the images in the newly published paper are under proper CC license. So I already uploaded the files to Commons. Now it would be convenient to review the images of the paper and those of the article. Levi bernardo (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
NT's ceratopsians are pretty spotty, but until someone else does a fully-body restoration, we might as well keep it. Everything else is good. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
All NT's ceratopsians are outdated and should be replaced by better imgs. I would add these new Coahuilaceratops imgs into article. Aventadoros (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
As much as I appreciate NT's work generally, I don't think this one is good enough to go on the page. What is going on around the proximal end of the femur? It looks like the femur was dislocated. Skye McDavid (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Is there any new anatomical info about this taxon that makes older skull reconstructions outdated? Or is it just about stratigraphy and evolution? FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Including feathers in the silhouette of Pyroraptor feels inadvisable since nothing is known of their form for this taxon. The skull is missing the surangular fenestra. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 12:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Douzhanopterus looks like it may have stitched together from several existing diagrams. Note how some of the bones have black outlines and others have dark gray, and how some bones don't fit with each other. See especially posterior part of the cervical series and anterior part of caudal series. I suspect this may be plagiarized. Skye McDavid (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not one to judge when it comes to repurposing published diagrams, but the Xilousuchus is problematic. It conforms pretty closely to the skeletal in Nesbitt et al. (2010)'s redescription, right down to the single preserved maxillary tooth (why aren't the rest in the silhouette, at least?) The differences are where the problems lie in my opinion. In Red Natters' version:
The prong-and-groove premaxilla-maxilla articulation is replaced with a flat margin.
The braincase appears to be misinterpreted as fragments of the jugal and postorbital.
The cervical ribs don't actually articulate onto the vertebral rib facets.
The caudal vertebrae is shaded as if it preserves a complete neural spine (unlike in the fossil).
The clavicle is misinterpreted as a scapula.
Some of the other fossils aren't depicted at all (ungual, sacral vertebra, the other caudal vertebra).
This screams to me as someone who tried to recreate a published skeletal without understanding the animal's skeletal anatomy that well. NGPezz (talk) 03:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I think it's most parsimonious to reconstruct it with some feathers. I just think we should avoid accidentally creating the perception that all non-cerapod ornithischians have the same feather and scale distribution as Kulindadromeus specifically. Skye McDavid (talk) 00:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
My first proper attempt at a combination scale bar and skeletal, for the very large "coelophysoid" Gojirasaurus, from the Norian of New Mexico. How does it look? NGPezz (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
There is a grid but no scale bar. Would definitely add that. Otherwise looks good. Skull and manus improved vis a vis the draft you messaged me about earlier. Skye McDavid (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks nice—it might be helpful to show the full extent of the partial dorsal vertebrae, as was done for other incomplete bones. I would personally upload the scale and skeletal as two separate images; it's not like there's not enough space on the page. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The reason I did not illustrate additional neural arches is because they're technically not even the same bone, the specimen has open neurocentral sutures, so the vertebral situation is not just a broken area. Same reason why I did not illustrate the coracoid. As for the scale / skeletal situation, I personally prefer having both in the same image, that's my preference. NGPezz (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
It matches up pretty much perfectly with the skull drawing in Figure 5 of the publication (accounting for the crushing/warping). Ddinodan (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The Meraxes looks great. The Qianlong, on the other hand, seems to have two left hands because the thumb is on the wrong side of the right hand. Looks like it was traced from the skeletal diagram in the paper describing it, so that's unsurprising. Not sure if its disqualifying since the same error is in the original publication (the thumb appears to articulate with the ulna on one arm and the radius on the other arm). The "Homocephale" is obviously completely unusable on Wikipedia. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the Qianlong skeletal is intended to be anatomically rigorous... all of the above, plus the five manual claws and the awkward tiptoe posture of the hindlimbs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
The Ambopteryx is attributed to Gunnar Bivens but was uploaded as 'own work' by an account other than Bricksmashtv4. Gunnar, could you confirm that this is indeed your work and is correctly licensed? Skye McDavid (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
The other Atroci has very wonky perspective and leg posture, so it would be nice if the more diagrammatical one could be updated. FunkMonk (talk) 07:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Life reconstruction and scale comparison of Asiatyrannus xui
Hi! I'm new to wikipedia, but I wanted to submit this Asiatyrannus recon I did for its page.
I based it off of the skeletal included in the paper mainly, but the skull included in that skeletal had a few issues so I based the skull off of actual fossil images as well as Cheung Chung Tat's reconstruction.
Welcome to Wikipedia! Your restoration looks nice—the paper's skeletal is directly taken from Scott Hartman's old Teratophoneus so naturally it won't match up exactly with the Asiatyrannus holotype. A minor comment on the image setup: it is generally preferred not to have excess text on the image if it is already accessible on the page. As for uploading your image, you can go here to upload on Wikimedia Commons. Let us know if you have any further questions! -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It was a major inspiration, apologies for not stating that, but I did modify it a bit so that it's not a direct copy. It just felt appropriate to me seeing as the recon was pretty clearly made in conjunction with the paper's team. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
So I just found this restoration that I forgot to upload some time ago. It is meant to replace the existing one in the article for some reasons. I know that the existing restoration is based on the skeletal by Hartman, but elements like the diminutive feet and reduced tail look unnatural. The almost quadrupedal stance also looks misleading, given its status as a theropod.
The stance of the old one always looked a bit like it was slipping to me, so maybe not so representative of typical locomotion. Might want to tag Steveoc 86 to see if he can fix it anyway, because it's still used on a lot of other Wikipedias. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd say go ahead with the new one, it's excellent and superior in every way. Originally, the gallimimus was part of another image where it was being chased, and it was posed as if slipping and about to touch the ground briefly. But on its own it looks a little weird. I did reduce the angle slightly a while back, but I don't have time to adjust properly right now. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Definitely an improvement. Just out of curiosity though, why are your reconstructions always so conservative in terms of colors and patterns? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It's just that most of the animals that I have reconstructed are quite large, the reason why I choose to depict a rather oonservative, non-flashy build, unless thhe opposite has been found. I should depict more colors though. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Aletopelta coombsi and Labocania anomala
Life reconstruction and size of Aletopelta coombsiLife reconstruction and size of Labocania anomala
I would not show Labocania as a carcharodontosaurid as we are not sure about that. In my opinion, this is a difficult taxon to show because of the paucity of fossils. However, there are indications that Labocania is a tyrannosaurid, so I would change the look. Also, it would be better if two legs and paws were visible rather than just one. Aventadoros (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand, we already have a few restorations of it as a tyrannosaur, so perhaps it's handy to have one like this just in case. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually there is Labocania as a tyrannosaurid, so let's keep this one as a carcharodontosaurid, but it would be better if all the limbs were visible in this reconstruction. Aventadoros (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps also confusing that our article only shows a cladogram of it being a Carcharodontosauridae.This is a case where two cladograms should be shown. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for the late responses. While Labocania has some traits in common with tyrannosaurids, it predates all known tyrannosaurids by over 10 million years, meanwhile it lived when carcharodontosaurs were still relatively abundant, so I personally find a carcharodontosaurid assigment more likely. As to the purpose of including it, this reconstruction in particular was actually based on the new Cau phylogeny, and I thought it could be helpful to illustrate that. As for the limbs, I personally prefer to show them in a neutral position as I find it's more helpful for referencing as well as for getting a proper sense of scale. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Multiple hypothetical reconstructions of fragmentary taxa is good I think. This carcharodontosaur Labocania is good, but we should also keep the tyrannosaur version on the article until a consensus in the literature emerges per WP:NPOV, regardless of any personal opinions. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I personally feel that many artists overexaggerate osteoderms like that, and osteoderms can oftentimes take on the color of the surrounding scales, which is what I was trying to present here, if you look closely there is texturing indicating the presence of osteoderms, it's just a little difficult to see against the red. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The entire lower Aletopelta reconstruction appears to be rotated so the limbs don't line up on the same plane (and as a result the toes are projecting upward). The hand seems to be lacking definition, and the arm might be rotated a little too far anteriorly. Also the linework appears particularly rough on the underside of the body. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I agree that the hands and feet of the Aletopelta appear a bit too slender, the hands in particular. I am also questioning the length of the neck, it may be too short in lateral view because of where the shoulders are in that view versus dorsal, but that's neither here nor there. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Gannansaurus sinensis
Life reconstruction and size of Gannansaurus sinensis
I was rescuing some drawings that I made between 2015-2018. And among them was a Lourinhasaurus, which has been on my to-do list for a long time, now on Wikimedia there are two imagesof Lourinhasaurus, but as User: Lythronaxargestes had noted, the skin pattern and the way it is shown is incorrect in this and other Iberian sauropods that the artist made. (in the corresponding review) Visually and artistically it is beautiful, but it has that detail, in addition to the fact that the nasal opening is too high and too far back. Additionally, the orbital fenestrae are too demarcated.
The skin has a somewhat Elephantine texture, which although is an appropriate way to apply and imitate for areas with wrinkles, areas with marks, etc. They are not exactly correct to what they really were to what is known about Tehuelchesaurus, Haestasaurus and Diplodocus sp. In addition, once you give a skin texture to something but it has a relatively high level of detail and the image is in high resolution so that the close-up makes it look like mammalian skin, you get into an interpretation problem. and what you intended to show becomes misleading and perhaps even anatomically incorrect at the dermal level.
Now, my illustration still lacks details, and I will be increasing the size of the scales on the upper part of the body. When I finish it I will also modify the position of the most forward front leg, and I will correct the posture of the neck to an even higher one. Doing this style of scales is even worse than doing popcorn or flower-style strokes on close-up drawings. Levi bernardo (talk) 08:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
At the time of the scans it still did not touch the head area at all, it remained the same from the original time I had made the drawing, but I will include a structure of that type to that portion of the mouth Levi bernardo (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Added to the page without review. Not sure what the justification is for the size discrepancy between versions. Which is accurate? The more recently-uploaded one is not the one currently used on the page. Regardless, the musculature on the legs might be a bit extreme, and it is missing some bones (fibula, ankle bones). Also not sure about the metatarsal robusticity. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:44, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think both are too big. The scale of the foot diagram shows the fourth digit on the toe as being about 11-12cm long. Based on the scale bar here (even for the smaller version) the toe is twice that length. This could be a discrepancy with the foot diagram I suppose, since I haven't read the full description, but I assume this is much too large. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
metatarsal is probably too robust. As for metatarsal length, Using ImageJ on these photos i get lengths of 30cm and 23cm respectively, compared to 17 cm on the reconstructed pes in the current infobox Skye McDavid (talk) Skye McDavid (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Manual digit IV is (partially?) missing. I don't mean that it's missing a claw, but that the distal phalanges and associated soft tissue are apparently missing. They are missing from the specimen but could be filled in from Iguanodon or Mantellisaurus. See Hu & Godefroit (2012)Skye McDavid (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. It's supposed to be "webbed" or sort of attached to digit II and III. Not as hooflike as more derived hadrosaurs, but similar to a fleshy hoof. [34][35]UnexpectedDinoLesson (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Vulcanodon. Since the fossil is not that well preserved, so I also used some skeletal drawings of Tazoudasaurus as a reference. Tell me if there are anything else to fix, thank you.
It looks very good! The one thing I'd like to point out is that the hind leg seems to be a uniform width across its entire length, whereas in life the limb would have presumably been tapered distally. Right now it gives the appearance that the animal is wearing pants. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@Palaeotaku: The feet look like generic sauropod feet, but Vulcanodon was much more basal. The semidigitigrade pes of later sauropods, where the metatarsals were near-horizontal, was absent in Vulcanodon, so it should look more prosauropod-like. Also, the hallux claw was large and sickle-shaped but the remaining claws were nail-like and broader than deep, which does not seem to be reflected in the drawing. Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia policies outside of our control, all user-made paleoart must be reviewed here (or WP:PALEOART for non-dinosaurs) by other editors for general accuracy. Your restoration does seem to be an improvement over the previous one, but I'll let others comment as well. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
No obvious errors I can see. The feathers on the arm look a bit odd being fully erect in that position, but I don't know if there's any consensus on how rigid the feathers in tyrannosauroids would have been. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The anatomy looks nice, but the pose makes it look like it's tipping over forwards. What step in the walk-cycle is this? FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
While these illustrations look generally good, none of them have been reviewed. Latirhinus, Labocania and Coahuilaceratops diagrams are currently used in the corresponding articles. Sittaco (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Daniela is a published researcher (lead author of the Coahuilaceratops paper from recently) so I see no issues with including their works. Anatomically there are no details that are clearly incorrect; some things like the Coahuila frill and Labocania as a tyrannosaur are subjective but fine. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Anatomically these illustrations are good (as are the Barrera Guevara illustrations I've seen elsewhere). Velafrons could be improved with a scale bar, and perhaps making the copyright statement less intrusive to follow wiki guidelines (full-body Labocania is good in this respect) but these are stylistic nitpicks. Skye McDavid (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Drew this Manidens as someone requested a recon of it on the Wiki Paleo Discord, leaving it here for review. Gave it levels of plumage based on that undescribed Tianyulong specimen. Olmagon (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Is it generally believed that heterodontosaurids didn't have unguals on the fourth and fifth digits? The only good postcranial remains come from Heterodontosaurus, and they do seem to have unguals. Am I missing something? A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Tianyulong pretty clearly doesn't have them. I will also note that the terminal phalanges in Heterodontosaurus - despite being claw-like - are not actually labelled as unguals here: [36]Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:54, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
A sidetrack, of course, but I wonder what the evolutionary pattern is behind this then. A basal feature or convergent evolution? FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
It appears to be a mix of both. Like lagerpetids, aetosaurs and rauisuchids appears to be at least four-clawed (see here), so it’s likely that avemetatarsalians and pseudosuchians ancestrally had four claws and lost their outer claws independently. Miracusaurs (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
To my knowledge, there are no known examples of a fourth manual ungual preserved in articulation in any archosaur. In Venetoraptor, the putative fourth manual ungual does not appear to have been found in articulation (the non-ungual phalanges are shown as not preserved), so I am not convinced it has been correctly identified. The linked paper on aetosaurs states "Considering the general morphology of the whole hand it is probable that very small claw-like unguals were present on the fourth and the fifth digits", but this appears to be speculation as the distal phalanges of digits IV and V are not preserved in the specimens at hand. I am not familiar with any evidence for fourth and fifth manual unguals in Dromomeron or rauisuchians—could you point me in the right direction? Ornithopsis (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
I have added reconstructions of Amargasaurus and Bravoceratops skeletals by Gunnar Bivens. I think they may be useful for Wikipedia articles. As far as their correctness is concerned, I have no objections.
They seem accurate enough to me, but I'm more concerned with the large amounts of text on the images. Maybe that can be removed? It would also allow for the skeletons to take up more of the image space. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Things I notice with the Amargasaurus: it has the wrong number of presacral vertebrae—it is depicted with a missing cervical and missing dorsal for a total of 13 cervicals and 12 dorsals, even though the specimen, which I believe was found in articulation, has only 12 cervicals and 11 dorsals. It is also depicted with gastralia, but there is no undisputed evidence for gastralia in sauropods and they were probably absent. The left wrist looks somewhat anatomically improbable. The dorsal rib placement is also wonky-looking; the capitulum should be tracking the placement of the parapophysis but instead it's remaining at the base of the neural arch throughout the series. Other than that, it looks good, as far as I can tell. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, text looks unprofessional. Less is clearly more here. I would even go as far as to remove all text, and even the human and the baseline; that could look much cleaner. When embedded in an article, those elements do not add anything (the Amargasaurus article already has two scale charts featuring humans). If you like to add it to Amargasaurus, note that it is a Featured Article, so we have to closely follow the guidelines (e.g., watermarks/author names on the image are discouraged). But yes, looks very good otherwise. Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing I note—three chevrons of the holotype of Amargasaurus cazaui are preserved, but they're not depicted here (Two dorsal ribs are also preserved, but they appear to be from the left side of the animal so I suppose they wouldn't be visible here). Ornithopsis (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I have a lot of quibbles with this one, some the same as those for the Amargasaurus: The rib capitulum is not tracking the position of the parapophysis, gastralia are unlikely, carpals and manual phalanges were probably absent in most derived titanosaurs, there are probably too many anarcuate "whiplash" caudals (this is depicted with 23, but Opisthocoelicaudia preserves only about 5, though it is not certain that the terminal caudal is preserved; the terminal caudal does appear to be preserved in Gobititan, which has the most anarcuate distal caudals known of any macronarian at 13), the 9th dorsal rib is depicted as preserved instead of the 10th, and the 12th cervical rib is depicted with a long, ventrally-directed shaft that reaches the pectoral girdle instead of the short, free, posteriorly directed shaft that the last cervical rib should have. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Uploaded by @Mikailodon:. Fauna list is from here.[37] For my opinion, overall seems fine, but there are some points fixable for other animals seen. In original chart by Joschua Knüppe, it seems that eyes of Paranogmius is placed too upwards. I think @Orthocormus: is more familiar with that. Also probably there should be issue about Mawsonia, probably @Megalotitan: knows more about that. Are there any other points to fix here? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I'd say the head-crest is way too speculative for Wikipedia's purpose, and the image is extremely "busy", so a bit hard to make out what's going on, especially at thumb-size. FunkMonk (talk) 14:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Are you referring to Kem Ken’s Mawsonia now being Axelrodichthys? There is both Kem Kem and Bahariya fauna here, since I think they would’ve been mixed thanks to their identicality. Mawsonia libyca is known from Bahariya, and that’s the species I’ve illustrated here. Mikailodon (talk) 15:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, I will advise in the caption that this is a speculative piece that should taken with some salt, though still plausible, said in a way that doesn’t clutter. Like "a speculative reconstruction of". Mikailodon (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Overall Machairoceratops looks good, however, the head has minor errors that need to be corrected:
1. Machairoceratops had no epiparietals except for the first pair curved forward. Their absence may have been due to tafonomy or juvenile age. It also had no episquamosales on the squamosal. see skull reconstruction
It is nice that outdated dinosaur reconstructions can be replaced by new ones, more correct than those currently in the articles. The lack of accessory epiparietales in Machairoceratops may be a distinguishing feature from currently known ceratopsians, as it co-occurred with yet another unnamed centrosaurine from the Wahweap Formation. However, I do not see any problems if they are in the above reconstruction. The area around the eye seems strange to me: there is no 'ring' that is added by other palaeoartists, see even Andrey Atuchin's Machairoceratops, which is visible above and on his other works. It gives the impression that the eye is not in the eye socket, besides that the eyelid is also missing. Other than that, it looks good. 2A01:110F:304:E500:6570:A855:2B0D:5ED7 (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
It depends on how we are to approach the reconstruction. If it is to be rigorous then it must be devoid of any epiossifications, however we cannot exclude their presence in adult individuals. I think the number of epiparietals and episquamosals may be close to that in Diabloceratops. Certainly the location of the ear is room for improvement. Squamosal has undulations, which suggesting the presence of 4 episquamosal loci. So it should have 4 episquamosales.
I made this reconstruction of Suchomimus tenerensis using the most up to date interpretations and studies of this taxon (such as the works from Sereno et al.,2022, Dan Folkes, Scott Hartman and Tyler Keillor). In my opinion, it's more accurate than the illustrations of it that I posted here previously and is more accurate and updated than the life restoration that is right now on the Suchomimus wikipedia page (considering the most recent model made by CT scans in the study Spinosaur is not an aquatic dinosaur - Sereno et al., 2022 and the skeletal reconstructions made by Scott Hartman (2024) and Dan Folkes (2023). I'd like it to be included on the wikipedia page of Suchomimus and I would be very grateful if it was reviewed impartially. Sauroarchive (talk) 18:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a flap of skin attaching the knee to the abdomen; this would immobilize the femur. Also, please consider making your handle and date smaller and less intrusive. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Ok so, basically every paleoartist (including paleontologists) I know reconstruct dinosaurs with that skin attaching the knee to the abdomen, such as Mark Witton, Matt Dempsey, Gabriel Ugueto, Andrey Atuchin, Sergey Krasovskiy and many many others. It would not immobilize the femur as the skin would be very flexible following the movement of the leg. Seriously, I don't know why you guys here always try to find some mistake on these reviews. Is it personal? There shouldn't have any paleoart that is 100% perfect because no one is completely sure what a non-avian dinosaur's external appearance looked like and what we try to do is make the most probable approximation possible.of it. This is the third reconstruction of Suchomimus I make and try to post here but you guys always find a problem on it. Whereas the life restoration depiction that is on the page right now is clearly outdated and no longer represents the interpretations we currently have of this taxon.
So for the handle and date, do you mean my watermark on the bottom right? I could perfectly remove it and let only my signature on the art. But the thing is...this depiction matches quite well the current interpretations and representations of Suchomimus (you can check the works and studies I cited and see how it matches) and I would love for it to be put on the page so people can see a more accurate and up-to-date approximation of the taxon. (Oh and don't get me wrong, I love the depiction that is on the page rn that was made by PaleoGeekSquared, but is indeed outdated). Sauroarchive (talk) 03:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're so upset about people providing feedback with the goal of improving your illustration when Wikipedia is a collaborative project and our collective goal here at WikiProject Dinosaurs is to disseminate accurate information about dinosaurs. I don't know why you think I would have a personal grudge against you when (as far as I can remember) the two of us have never directly interacted. To clarify, yes, there would be skin in between the thigh and abdomen that would be visible in lateral view when the femur is angled backwards or straight down. When the femur is angled forward, as in this illustration, it would either not be visible, or would have much more slack to allow for movement, rather than being taut as in this illustration. Also, it would most likely attach higher up on the thigh (not immediately above the knee) in order to allow greater leg flexibility. Of course there is some speculation in any paleoart, but we can use the principle of parsimony when there is no direct evidence. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not upset. Sorry if my answer led to this interpretation. It's just that I like to clarify things a lot and I end up writing very long texts. And I was not referring it to you specifically because, as you said, I never interacted with you before. What irritates me is just how the people who review the art here look for errors in an exaggerated way sometimes. Regard to the skin in between the thigh and abdomen, so it has to do with the angle and position of the femur...I will review it and try to let it more in line with what you observed.
And a question: As for the handle and the date, do you mean my watermark on the bottom right?
Sorry again, even if what I mentioned above irritates me a little, I will try to improve my illustration according to the feedback and update it. Thank you. Sauroarchive (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
'handle and date' refers to the text "@sauroarchive, 2024." in the bottom-right corner. You don't necessarily have to remove it completely, but at least make it smaller and less intrusive Skye McDavid (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, I don't think so. You can check the digital skeletal reconstruction present on the study ''Spinosaurus is not an aquatic dinosaur'' - Sereno et al., 2022, aswell the skeletal reconstructions made by Dan Folkes (2023) and specially the one made by Scott Hartman (2024) and compare the feet with this reconstruction. Spinosaurids in general didn't have big feets like other big theropods did Sauroarchive (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Proportions match Hartman and Folkes' skeletals. It is admittedly based on scaling between multiple specimens but within a reasonable range. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
The artist (Joschua Knüppe) worked in collaboration with the authors to create this and another piece for the naming and description of Alpkarakush, so this piece is in the clear to be used. AusPaleo (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see this image in the review archives but it is used in two articles. Usually there isn't much to criticize about simple illustrations of fossils, but in this case I have my doubts about the notch on the dorsal surface of the reconstructed part of MPC-D 107/07. This seems to be a copy of the notch on LH V0011 which at first glance seems to just be damage to the fossil. Thoughts? Skye McDavid (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
If they're suggested to be the same or a similar taxon, I think the notch is appropriate to include, even if its likely taphonomic in nature, unless the literature on these specimens has specifically said otherwise. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
A couple illustrations I did for Fona. Oryctodromeus fossils suggest that the ossified tendons would probably be much more prominent/abundant, but I didn't want to obscure the entire caudal series. The silhouette in the size chart is based on the holotype + 'Mini Troll' specimens, though smaller and larger specimens exist. Comments appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
General form and visible synapomorphies check out. Paper says there are 17 dentary tooth positions but I only see 14 teeth. The ossified tendons are a lot sparser in Thescelosaurus, is there a reason to think that wouldn't have been the plesiomorphic condition? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Corrected the dentary tooth count (plus made a few other updates). Regardless of the plesiomorphic condition for 'SBEDO' ossified tendons, the skeletal is consistent with what is known in Fona. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
agree with SlvrHwk's choice not to obscure the caudal series with ossified tendons, regardless of what the actual condition would've been in Fona. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Comparing to reconstruction from paper, this Qianjiangsaurus has nostrills to high and it should be closer to beak. Also lacking a keratin sheath on the upper part od beak. Compare it with paper's reconstruction. Beak looks nice in this Jeyawati rugoculus. [38]Aventadoros (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I see neither point as a significant issue here. The upper skull isn't known so the exact location of the naris is uncertain, and the beak here already clearly descends below the tooth row, there just isn't as sharp a margin of the keratin to see it IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I fully agree with @IJReid and @Lythronaxargestes about the general correctness of the UDL's Qianjiangsaurus, however I also think that @Aventadoros is correct about the placement of the nostrils near the snout. The fact that we do not know the whole skull does not mean that, based on Witmer's (2001) publication, the nostrils cannot just be placed near the snout. I think it is on the basis of this paper that palaeoartists place the nostrils near the snout. Also, are there any alternative hypotheses about the position of the nostrils?
Witmer, L. M. (2001). Nostril position in dinosaurs and other vertebrates and its significance for nasal function. Science, 293(5531), 850-853.
Not really an issue per se, but the skeletal reconstruction in the description paper makes a strange choice in depicting Qianjiangsaurus with a high skull roof/narial region, although this is very much not supported by any of the phylogenetically close taxa with preserved skulls (e.g. Plesiohadros, Gobihadros, Telmatosaurus, Tethyshadros, etc...). So for Wikipedia purposes—since this odd interpretation has been published—maybe it's technically not an issue. Just be aware that it doesn't seem to be particularly well supported. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Qianjiangsaurus (Ddinodan)
Recon follows the paper skeletal and partially Plesiohadros.
I see nothing significantly wrong with any of these. I am wondering if the positions of the eyes on Campananeyen and Alpkarakush are right, or slightly too high up? That's it IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Is the taller skull of Alpkarakush based on Yangchuanosaurus? Why Y. instead of, say, Sinraptor?
Not sure if I'm misinterpreting the line work, but digit I on the right hand of Caletodraco looks flexed - not sure that would've been possible.
The only skull element preserved from Alpkarakush is the boss. Yangchuanosaurus was the first relative that came to mind with something similar preserved, which is why I used it. The overall skull anatomy wouldn’t be much different if I used Sinraptor.
The articulation in Caletodraco is a misinterpretation by me, I thought it was much more basal than it is. It’ll be adjusted whenever I have the time. Ddinodan (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
This skeletal diagram does not match the preserved material:
centrum of caudal vertebra 1 is illustrated as part of the ilium
caudal vertebra 1 transverse process is reconstructed as a separate vertebra from the centrum, and is roughly in the position where caudal vertebra 2 would be
sacral neural spines missing
caudal vertebra is misaligned with sacrum
Shapes of the hand and feet are indeed weird, plus the silhouette could be cleaned up (parts on the edges that aren't colored in). Also, this is less important, but the edges of the bone are rather rough and pixelated: consider illustrating at a higher resolution and with antialiasing. Skye McDavid (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I was going to comment most of those same things. In addition to Skye's comments on the fossil misinterpretations and inconsistencies, there are a few silhouette proportions that should be corrected based on more complete taxa. As it currently is, the skull and feet are much too large and roughly drawn, and the tail is too long. Is there a reason there is a separate version without teeth? The pubis and ischium should have a more consistent length, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to add some more details there (e.g. obturator foramen). While it might look unnatural, the hands probably wouldn't be prominently visible in a neutral pose in lateral view. Finally, since this is a skeletal diagram based on a specific fragmentary fossil, there should ideally be a scale bar added. (This might be helpful). -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Lythronaxargestes, @Skye McDavid & @SlvrHwk for critiquing this. It's worth noting that the rather inconsistent and inaccurate nature of this piece was the result of lack of experience and rushing to get this piece completed.
Furthermore, I feel all further critique on the Caletodraco skeletal should be directed towards SlvrHwk's alternate version. AusPaleo (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
No judgement here, all contributions are appreciated! Though I agree we should use SlvrHwk's version (or potentially a revision of it) Skye McDavid (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
No particular reason; just the pose I picked for non-Wiki purposes. I suppose a more neutral pose would be more practical here. I can update it if desired. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
They look quite prominent in frontal/ventral view. In lateral, they're barely visible, nor distinguishable from each other. This all depending on if they actually would have been extended with keratin to begin with. Ddinodan (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The page might not have room for more images, but in case they're ever useful, here are a couple extra diagrams for Gryposaurus sp.Coahuilasaurus. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Bonapartenykus
Bonapartenykus, as requested. Please review for accuracy.
Based on other neoceratopsians, I wonder if it might be worth differentiating the colour or texture of the jugal horn to emphasise that it is keratinised. To a lesser extent than Auroraceratops, certainly, but it seems plausible based on the texturing of the bone. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree. There should be visible keratin on the epijugal and if it had a different colour it would be more distinguishable from the rest. Aventadoros (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
In terms of accuracy it's good, no comments, but some suggestions regarding style and labels:
lines are somewhat jagged; I would recommend using a digital stabilization tool to make the linework neater
the two fenestrae behind the orbit and the maxillary fenestra are unlabeled; I would recommend either labeling only the parts that are preserved or everything
it isn't obvious what the 'antorbital fossa' label arrow points to for a reader who isn't familiar with anatomical terminology. I would recommend placing the arrow in between the maxillary fenestra and promaxillary fenestra.
Not sure if it's a convention to have them white, but should the unpreserved teeth not be grey like the rest of the unpreserved parts? FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Different illustrators do lots of different things and as a result there isn't a single clear convention. Probably the most common semi-convention is to have preserved parts in white and reconstructed parts in gray. This is what I would recommend, but this illustration is fine as is as long as it's clear from the caption and context what is preserved and what is reconstructed. (As a side note, there is an effort I'm involved in to put together a best practices guide for these types of illustrations, but it's nowhere near ready, and we're hoping to get input from others at SVP. Feel free to reach out to me if you want to share your thoughts.) Skye McDavid (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Caletodraco
Newly named abelisaurid from France. Please review for accuracy.
.png)
Guanlong size
Kileskus size
Proceratosaurus size
Guanlong wucaii skull restorations
.jpg)
Skeletal
Skull
.jpg)
Skull reconstruction.
Life restoration.
NT's life restoration on the article.
Skull cast on the article..png)
.png)
Eudibamus
![Ambopteryx[1] (seems to be originally from DeviantArt, but original looks like removed, so I am not sure that is still licenceable)](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9C%E3%83%97%E3%83%86%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%E3%81%AE%E9%AA%A8%E6%A0%BC%E5%9B%B3.png/120px-%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9C%E3%83%97%E3%83%86%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%E3%81%AE%E9%AA%A8%E6%A0%BC%E5%9B%B3.png)
Ambopteryx[1] (seems to be originally from DeviantArt, but original looks like removed, so I am not sure that is still licenceable)
![Ambopteryx[1] (seems to be originally from DeviantArt, but original looks like removed, so I am not sure that is still licenceable)](/wiki/File:%E3%82%A2%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9C%E3%83%97%E3%83%86%E3%83%AA%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9%E3%81%AE%E9%AA%A8%E6%A0%BC%E5%9B%B3.png)
New
Present
Labocania
Fona skeletal
Fona size
.jpg)
Qianjiangsaurus size
Caletodraco skeletal
Caletodraco size
Size
Skeletal
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Digital_skeletal_reconstructions_of_Suchomimus.png){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Skulls_of_Allosaurus_species.png){kind=link}
![[8]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1371499467246-H73QQ8KO7379G4ELOJWI/Stormbergia.jpg?format=1500w){kind=link}
![[9]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1371499454826-3ETXQBRB65ZMPLJTA1ZY/Othnielosaurus.jpg?format=1500w){kind=link}
![[10]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1371499484851-48DERZNKSJ8SQ5ICW5ZQ/Hypsilophodon.jpg?format=1500w){kind=link}
![[11]](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/1407382575649-NYU4V3UQ36OX09GC9QNR/Laquintasaura.jpg?format=1500w){kind=link}
![[14]](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/0f66bd92-b8b1-48f5-b588-245663ca9c4d/dcdw6kj-639c5fd2-fab3-4812-b97e-d3bd84feebf8.png/v1/fill/w_1095,h_730,q_70,strp/__leaellynasaura___sp__skeletal_by_plastospleen_dcdw6kj-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9ODU0IiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvMGY2NmJkOTItYjhiMS00OGY1LWI1ODgtMjQ1NjYzY2E5YzRkXC9kY2R3NmtqLTYzOWM1ZmQyLWZhYjMtNDgxMi1iOTdlLWQzYmQ4NGZlZWJmOC5wbmciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTI4MCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.SdjdwkcGK0IDrpJwi2c8XyqOsPCFE_DwgD3fG0YYFOY){kind=link}
![[20]](https://i.imgur.com/pPg9qBT.jpeg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://i.imgur.com/Yfp2JIG.jpeg){kind=link}
![[26]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjml1YPit4xI65gtWjiQ1vQJarc7OgziKS8cHY8imPCAl0BUg17KW2ZSbq1qbVm4CE_o46gQtb7xbF5KOcszDfiP-RaQjpLMYou-qVTKXD4DJ64aTHsVPPLGKM1KRIb4YgZ6qjCeUWTvv36H2GkkgblNfyZgfuzIrOkisI5DvjWwAIQiUe2Ne1rBygbhOC8/s2880/Lokiceratops_rangiformis-novataxa_2024-Loewen_Sertich_Sampson__Evans.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](https://nhmu.utah.edu/sites/default/files/styles/x_small_480w/public/images/2024-06/Lokiceratops%20bust%20black%20Andrey%20Atuchin.jpg?itok=hv460rho){kind=link}
![[31]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stenonychosaurus_skeleton.jpg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/ae34ad19-611e-40d4-868f-1a1a958af63f/da5p2en-6c870684-1118-4b58-818f-3897a787d66a.jpg/v1/fill/w_1330,h_601,q_70,strp/iguanodon_by_paleoguy_da5p2en-pre.jpg?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWIiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwiaXNzIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsIm9iaiI6W1t7ImhlaWdodCI6Ijw9NzIzIiwicGF0aCI6IlwvZlwvYWUzNGFkMTktNjExZS00MGQ0LTg2OGYtMWExYTk1OGFmNjNmXC9kYTVwMmVuLTZjODcwNjg0LTExMTgtNGI1OC04MThmLTM4OTdhNzg3ZDY2YS5qcGciLCJ3aWR0aCI6Ijw9MTYwMCJ9XV0sImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTppbWFnZS5vcGVyYXRpb25zIl19.B_WFC2qMF0InAoiIhwDvPOxubp3Bh7cQVb1t7TYXYyU){kind=link}
![[35]](https://scontent-hou1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/298546916_499109852216487_5758646192566051043_n.jpg?_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=833d8c&_nc_ohc=fQ54gA-R4RwQ7kNvgGykaHw&_nc_ht=scontent-hou1-1.xx&oh=00_AYDsyzrXIMcUojH3gEgE4aqB4iU1tnG3QwkFbP9XOoU-NQ&oe=66C091A1){kind=link}
