Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive July & August 2007

? Shortcut: WP:DINOART Dinosaur Image Review 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. 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). 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 encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. 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

Familie Ceratopsidae

just the s6tart it takes much longer to make it svg, but i thing it is better so, please make as much correcttions as you want, from all i know the sizes are not right. i will work with the other heads later-LadyofHats 23:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They look great of course! I can't evaluate them technically though. I have a question though - what motivated this selection of genera? For example, why other famous ceratopsids like Triceratops or Styracosaurus, not there? Debivort 05:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

judging by the thumbnail it looks good but for some reason my computer can't recognise the file type svg? so sadly i can't see the larger version. Steveoc 86 08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The wikimedia server is buggy with svgs. For me, I can see it as a thumb, but not on its image page, but when I click the empty space of the image page, I can see the full size version just fine. Debivort 15:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

When i click the empty space it asks to open or save the file, if i save it, none of the programs i have can view it? not even photoshop CS2 ? Steveoc 86 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I also cannot see the file. Can you convert this to a png, LoH? Firsfron of Ronchester 20:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• • it is a non finished work, it is not that i chosed just few heads. also it should show now. still i will make a jpg version and post the link here -LadyofHats 12:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• The text would be almost illegible when in articles. Consider numbering them and leaving the key on the description page so that it can be placed in captions? Circeus 19:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• i will place this project in waiting list, i dont seem to get enough information on all the animals. so i will go back to drawing individual dinosaurs-LadyofHats 04:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, great illustration. Maybe good to split into centrosaurines and chasmosaurines, or have as a mega image. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What's happened to this image? It isn't used in any articles, but looks complete...? Debivort 07:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Prosaurolophus Maximus Head

I thought I’d try a different technique, [1] [2] [3] This is based of the two drawings in the Brown paper. The top doesn't quite match the side view so there may be some problems. Also I’m not shore were, and how big the eye ball should be? Where it is know is one of the few places I could fit it (At its current size). The final version would be textured, here’s some animal testing [4]. From what I know hadrosaurs have small regular pebbly skin, Does anyone have a an idea of how big the scales should be. Once done It could also be animated. [5] Steveoc 86 23:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sweet Dude! Debivort 23:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That is INSANE man! Wow! Sheep81 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, does anyone have a front view of this animal? Steveoc 86 08:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Its taken a long time due to other comitments but finally heres the final version, [6] Steveoc 86 14:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Amazing... ArthurWeasley 15:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur :) Steveoc 86 15:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The wait was worth it. Bravo! J. Spencer 16:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks agian, ive uploaded it onto the commons.Steveoc 86 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Gryposaurus headshot

For your review. ArthurWeasley 04:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• 

It looks very good, except the neck structures should be longer than tall. If you'd like, I'll scan in a photo that shows them and send it to you. J. Spencer 04:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like that. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 05:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm turning in after I finish fixing my erroneous editor order, but I'll get it to you in the morning. J. Spencer 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, check your mail. J. Spencer 15:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Great as always. I can't see any skull errors. I love the shadingSteveoc 86 15:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Updated. ArthurWeasley 05:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. It's not necessary, but I wonder if you could make the jugal stand out a bit more? J. Spencer 13:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Emphasized a little bit the cheek. ArthurWeasley 04:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I like that; otherwise, it looked a bit concave or hollow. J. Spencer 13:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No one had any other comments, so I put it in. J. Spencer 13:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus skulls

P. cyrtocristatus

I'm doing the skulls of each species of Parasaurolophus for later comparing his crests in one image. First I did the skull of P. cyrtocristatus, soon I will upload the others. If someone can, send me the skull diagram of P. tubicen. Cheers. Dropzink 18:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Send me an email, and I'll get you one. P. tubicen is pretty close to P. walkeri, only somewhat larger. J. Spencer 18:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, love this dino, cant wait to see the others. Steveoc 86 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lambeosaurus lambei head series

Here is a draft. Please note that the different heads are not on scale yet (will do in the final version). Comments? ArthurWeasley 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• 

Wow! You work astonishingly fast! I like those a lot. J. Spencer 20:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! I can't see any inacuracies, Maybe you could label them, with their origanal and genus speices names and what their currently thought to be eg male, female, juvi. Steveoc 86 21:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Finalized version. ArthurWeasley 04:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• 

I knew that would look cool. :) Two questions: Is there enough space to include the proposed "juvenile/female/male" tags (all three on the left juvie, and the two clavinitialis female); and, as you did with your Gryposaurus, could you put a bit more emphasis in the cheeks? J. Spencer 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's really awesome! But there is another error, in the name "Procheneosaurus cranibrevis", is separated by two spaces, not by one. You will say that it is unnecesary but the text on the image is also important. When fix the cheeks of this version remember to erase that space. Cheers. Dropzink 02:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! ArthurWeasley 06:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a keeper :) J. Spencer 13:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Added. J. Spencer 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kritosaurus, Anatotitan

Two drafts. Any thoughts? ArthurWeasley 14:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Kritosaurus
• 
  Anatotitan

• Kritosaurus: close, but the crest is a bit too high. From the known skull material, it's kind of like a subtle Prosaurolophus or a Lophorhothon, not as tall as Gryposaurus, and right in front of the eyes. That's kind of vague, so if you like, I can scan in some Krito skull reconstructions, and I won't even try to convince you that K=Anasaziasaurus and Naashoibitosaurus. :) J. Spencer 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I'd like to get these scans as I was unable to find any up-to-date skull reconstruction for this critter on the web. ArthurWeasley 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anatotitan: The left leg is throwing me a bit, because it looks like a profile while the rest of it looks like a shallow angle to the viewer. If the leg was turned a bit, it would all go together. J. Spencer 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right now that you are mentioning it. Will correct this in the finalized version. Thanks. ArthurWeasley 01:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anatotitan finalized. Will work on Kritosaurus tomorrow if I have time (btw I've received your scan, thanks!). What the status about the hypothesis of the crest supporting a flap of skin that could be inflated to create sound? ArthurWeasley 06:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard much about it in recent papers, but no one has said anything against it either. It was still in The Dinosauria II. J. Spencer 15:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The new lanbeosaurus pick is awsome and these look good too, cant really review them properly, im in a foragin country and it costs money to use internet. 2mins remaining ahh Steveoc 86 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Krito finalized. ArthurWeasley 04:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Although this is probably just me & it doesn't really affect the trueness of the picture, Anatotitan's stance looks like an optical illusion - the front half of the body seems to be at a different angle to the back half & the third leg looks a bit weird too. Could this be fixed? The other picture looks great though! Spawn Man 06:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I know why the image looks like an illusion - the patch of unshaded belly just to the right of the knee. This part would be shaded by the width of the torso and the leg, and left bright it seems to recede deeper than the leg. Debivort 04:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Have added Krito to article. J. Spencer 21:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't suppose anyone would mind doing a view of Anatotitan from the front to show off the duckbill? Sheep81 03:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

pentaceratops

now, there is an image in the article. but i found this amazing picture of the skeleton that i really "had" to do it. here is the sketch. let me know what you think-LadyofHats 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Great! Two things, the neck on the right one looks a bit thin, but I'll wait until someone with more anatomical dino knowledge adjudicates on it. The beak on the left one looks a bit wide open and I got confuse for a minute that it was a black band across the nose. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, i agree about the thickness of the ncek, maybe the brow horns should be longer (have more horn) im not shure how much longer though. Steveoc 86 17:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the pair of Pentaceratops are too slenders compared to his giant frills, in my opinion the creatures strongly resemble hatchlings... how can a 5-meter-long ceratopsian dinosaur had that kind of anatomy? Dropzink 20:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the neck is too thin - I thought that when I saw it and found others had seen it also, so yeah, neck too thin. Other than that the picture seems alright. You always do great pictures though... :) Spawn Man 06:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• the image i used to make it was [this one]. so what do you think?-LadyofHats 18:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... The neck still seems a bit to thin for the crest. Also, the colour is a bit dark & obscures detail, especially in the forward facing dinosaur. Cheers, Spawn Man 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• i made the color a bit more bright and made the neck thicker, but still i can not make it much more. since the other models dont show it this way. plus considering the 2 huge holes on the crest it can not be that heavy-LadyofHats 11:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This looks amazing! I don't see how the neck could be made any thicker, anatomically, unless you went with that old "entire frill incorporated into neck muscles" idea, which was wrong. The big fenestrae are there to make it nice and light. Dinoguy2 12:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Supersaurus

hereis the sketch. i have problems with the form of the head. any source you have to help me would be apreciated -LadyofHats 19:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, check out Scott Hartmans supersaurus for general proportions [[7]], sadly i don't think a skull is known[[8]]. Hartmans site sais its more closely related to Apatosaurus, so maybe that could be used.Steveoc 86 20:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• ok it is done. it is hard to get more detail when this animal is simply sooo long... anyway hope you like it-LadyofHats 19:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

great, although im wondering about the angle of the neck, i dont know how much mobility there would be in this animal? Would it be possible to lower/rotate the neck slightly?Steveoc 86 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

it made the image even longer but anyway. here it is.. what do you think?-LadyofHats 10:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant, much better.Steveoc 86 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Alioramus

I was itching to be bold with this smaller tyrannosaurid and have it feathered but finally choose to stick with the classic big theropod scaly rendering that we already have for Gorgosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Albertosaurus illustrations. I could make a feathered version later though. ArthurWeasley 14:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• 

Looks good, the only thing i can see is the the back leg behind the body. It might be an illustion but it makes the animals hip area look really wide. Tyrannosaurs have much narrower hips from what ive seenSteveoc 86 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the stance appears way too wide compared to the angle of the torso. Otherwise, looks really good! Dinoguy2 07:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

How is it now? ArthurWeasley 13:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Much better, sorry to be picky, but the back leg seems a bit straight aswell, on Dinoforum Scott Hartman often comments on the straightness of dinosaur knees and how they're often disarticulated. Maybe the shin could be rotated in abit to fix this.Steveoc 86 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot that one. OK, I've rotated slightly the right leg. ArthurWeasley 06:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what Hartman sugested for gorgosauurs [9] so they may need to be rotated a little more.Steveoc 86 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus

One user requested a picture of this one. ArthurWeasley 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• 

Great, can't see anything wrong with it. Steveoc 86 10:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Albertaceratops

Thoughts? ArthurWeasley 15:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• 

Somthing really naturalistic about this one. This dino seems quite new, i can only find a few drawings online but yours seems to match. Great. Steveoc 86 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, this guy is new in the past few months I think. Looks great Arthur! No problems I can see. Dinoguy2 06:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Juravenator

Feathered or not feathered, that is the question... I used this page as guidelines. ArthurWeasley 06:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

• 

Looks great! All positive evdence says "not feathered", but I think the feathers are ok the way you have them, at least if you subscribe to the idea that feathers arose for display rather than for insulation. Dinoguy2 06:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Majungasaurus, Rahonavis, Utahraptor

Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• 
  Majungasaurus
• 
  Rahonavis
• 
  Utahraptor

Overall, great work as usual Arthur! I love the pebbly texture of the Majung, matches carnotaur skin impressions well. Can't see any problems with Utah either. The only issue I can see is the wing of Rahonavis. The longest, primary feathers should extend all the way down digit 2, forming a proper wing, probably even moreso than in microraptorians given the prominant quill knobs seen in Rahon but not in Micro or Archie (i.e., Rahonavis would likely have even larger, more 'modern' wings than these species, which already were hard to distinguish from modern bird wings). In your drawing, it looks like they stem from the wrist, or even the joint between digits 1 and 2. I'd also expect the largest feathers to be at least twice as long as digit 2, as in related species. With the wing proportions and the 'short' feathers elsewhere on the body (see again Micro, that thing had feather contours like a pigeon, with very thick feathering in the neck and breast at least), it doesn't strike me as an animal that could fly or at least glide. You might even consider feathering digit 1, as in Microraptor. Dinoguy2 09:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dinoguy about the feathers, i love the colouring on Rahonavis! I can't comment on utahraptor as i can find any skeletal reconstructions. I dont know how much as been found. Majungasaurus looks good this is Ville Sinkkonen's [10], It looks quite bazzar with short legs and small feet. Aparently this is put togethter from 3 individulas so there may be some error. Great work. Steveoc 86 10:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The arms are way too small and thin in that reconstruction (Ville's, not Arthur's). Here is the official one from the recent monograph. They haven't found anything of Majunga's forelimb except the humerus yet but even there you can see it's way bigger. Can't prove it but I think the forearm should probably be a bit stubbier... the radius and ulna of Carnotaurus and Aucasaurus are so short it looks like there is a hand coming out of the elbow[11]. There's no wrist cause there are no carpal bones! Since the rest of Majunga's forelimb is unknown, it could certainly look different, but the humerus is nearly identical to Auca's. Overall I think Arthur's is fantastic, I love the pose and the coloring. The skin texture is really good, the only other thing I can think of is that the nasal area should look rougher, that was probably a display structure after all. Adding a few squiggly lines or some bumps would probably do it but I leave that up to the artist of course! Maybe make the brow over the eye a little thicker too. Sheep81 06:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New version of Rahonavis and Majungasaurus uploaded. For Majunga, modifications done on the head do not really show at this scale, may be I should consider drawing a headshot. ArthurWeasley 06:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't stop you. :) Sheep81 06:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A Majungasaurus head would be great!Steveoc 86 09:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Big improvement on Rahonavis anatomically, though the wings still don't seem 'full' to me, the feathers don't form a consistant plane, so it looks more like something that's lost its aerial ability (granted this is all inference! Who knows if the thing could really fly, but that seems to be the consensus). Basal birds and dromies had wings more along the lines of [12], or of course [13]. If I had to pin down what's bothering me specifically, it might be that there appear to be too few feathers, and little differentiation in shape and size between the feathers on the different sections of the wing. The primaries should form a 'wedge' of increasing feather length aside from the last one which is about half the size of the biggest primary, wheras the secondaries are all about equal length, more rounded at the tip, and at less of an angle relative to the arm. The first linked image is probably the most accurate Rahon drawing I've seen (aside from the reversed hallux and possibly overextended arms), fwiw, down to the prominant lack of tertial remiges (something yours got right from the get-go... :)) Sorry for all the nitpicking, it's just that there are so many really bad reconstructions of basal birds out there, it'd be awesome if we absolutely nailed it for Wiki. Dinoguy2 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Longest sauropods

• 
  Update w/ Bru
• 
  Arranged with heads lined up

Hey guys, was working a bit on Dinosaur size today and got the urge to do another scale chart, this time of the longest known dinosaurs (I had Sauroposeidon in there, but it threw off the whole 'composition' even more than Therizinosaurus in the theropod diagram, so I opted to leave it out). One thing that still strikes me as wonky is Ken Carpenter's argentinosaur reconstruction... if anybody has a titanosaur image with more normal head/neck proportions, as long as it matches proportions of known elements, I'd like to replace it. Dinoguy2 14:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your thinking about Sauroposeidon? My initial illustrative response is that it should be included even if it hurts the composition, to make the image inclusive. Debivort 15:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. By wonky do do you mean neck to tail ratio. I resently found a skeletal reconsrtuction online for saltasaurus and it does seem to have a really short neck and long tail. It was on a website called dinoweb i would post a link but i tried once before and they didn't like it. Steveoc 86 17:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Copy this into your browser http://www.dinoweb.narod.ru/Saltasaurus3.gif. Considering that the neck and tail arn't known for Argentinosaurus you could make a note somwhere that it's reconstructed after saltasaurus. Also it be nice to see the end of the tail on diplodicus and supersaurus. Steveoc 86 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, though I'd prefer it if the tails were included. The diagram shows the longest sauropods, but doesn't show exactly how long they were. Mgiganteus1 17:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Acually, I think Carpenter scaled argentinosaurus too large. The tibia is ment to be 1.55m. This is what i get if that measurment is correct [14] This is a image showing a range of titanosaur body proportions, im not shure which would be best to use?[15] Steveoc 86 18:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

New version: tails included, Sauroposeidon added. I kept Argentinosaurus and Sauroposeidon scaled after Carpenter, tohugh I do think they seem a bit too big... I tried scalin Sauro back so it matched the 29m length we have listed (Carpenter's was about 35m), but the larger one actually more closely matched the image on the Sauroposeidon' article, so I left it. It also sems to correspond more to an 18m height. Dinoguy2 01:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a diagram last night to scale all the reconstrcutions to known bone measurments (im not saying we use this). Argentinosuaurs 1.55m femur, Paraititan 1.68m humerus, Bruhathkayosaurus 2m tibia, Antarcosuarus 2.35m femur, Supersaurus and diplodicus are scaled to the sizes Hartman drew them. Sauroposeidon is scaled to have 1.2m neck vertebra. Interestingly it comes out at only 25m? (the siluet could be wrong). The GSP Brachiosaurus is scaled to the scale bar that came with it. [16]Steveoc 86 09:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Small problem with image, is that it's hard to compare which of the smaller ones are larger. For instance, the orange vs the green. Maybe it's intended that way, but I saw the image on commons listed as a "comparison chart", yet I can't compare most in the picture (althougth it's clear the red one is the larger) -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 12:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad point - all the heads are at different levels, so why not flush them vertically? Debivort 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Few different verisons--let me know which one you like best. I've also added Bruhathkay, and used Steve's Bru drawing for a re-scale of Argentino. Oddly enough the tibia length is exactly the same as in Carpenter's, but the overall proportions seem a bit more realistic to me, rather than scaling up a Saltasaurus. Eyeballin it, it also seems to match the Georgia mount fairly closely. Dinoguy2 15:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the lined up version a lot - it looks like they are about to race. If we use that one, would you mind bending the purple tail up a bit so that we can be sure we are seeing the very end of it. Debivort 15:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, flipped the tail tip up. Dinoguy2 16:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for useing my image :) Sorry to keep this going but i think you've scaled bruhath abit big scaling Carpenters Argentino to have a 2m tibia it comes out about 7.5m tall. Yours seems about 8-8.5m tall. Im also worried about sauroposiden being abit large, see the image i posted above. The artical says the largest vert was 1.2m. scaling Carpenters drawing to have a vert that isze it comes out at about 6.5m tall to the top of the back. But i want to check for other reconstructions for comparison. Steveoc 86 17:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I found another reconstruction online [17]. Sadly it doesn't have a scale bar. But roughly scaling the image to the human (asuming its about 1.80m) it also comes out at about 6.5m tall (to the top of the back).Steveoc 86 17:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool I thought Sauro looked way too big (we may have to scale down the image currently in the taxobox there as well). I used the scale bar in your drawing when scaling Bru actually, but the smaller version isn't drastically smaller in size, so I might have bungled the initial scale adjustment somehow... Anyway, new version up. Dinoguy2 03:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better thanks, I have just found the sauro paper. The paper says the centrum length is 1,250mm with an overall length of 1,400mm, Carpenter mush have scaled the vertebra 'centrum' to be 1.4m acidently making it larger. Steveoc 86 08:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Gallimimus

This is a work in progress, based proportionally of Hartmans skeletal, I'm wondering about the oriantation of the hands, is the pose they're in possible? [18]Steveoc 86 11:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the foreground hand is flexed laterally towards the viewer, is that what you mean? I'm pretty sure that would have been possible, as I've seen knowledgable people use a similar 'semi-tripping' pose with one hand on the ground. Especially for ornithomimids, which I think had an unusual degree of hand mobility. But don't quote me on that ;) Dinoguy2 13:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

cool thanks. Steveoc 86 14:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

New version. [19] Steveoc 86 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Madagascar

New version of Rahonavis and Majunga headshot. ArthurWeasley 07:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• 
• 

I'll let Dinoguy judge Rahonavis but I think it looks good. As far as Majunga, that is an amazing headshot. The only thing I can really think of is that the raised area on the back of the skull was for muscle attachment, so it wouldn't have looked like a crest as in that image. If you make the neck taller, so that it is continuous with the top of the raised area, that would be more accurate. The neck was really thick in this and other abelisaurids. But overall I could not be more pleased. Thanks!!! Sheep81 07:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, I am not talking about the crest above the eye, but the one behind it right before the neck starts. Check out the silhouette in the full body image I posted to see how it should look. Sheep81 07:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree on the Majung muscle attatchment, otherwise it looks great. And the new Rahon is phenomenal! Improved not only in accuracy but in style, in my opinion. Love the new pose, very dynamic, rather than the stereotypical GSP-style running theropod. Microraptor-style narrow-chord wings are a cool touch. Well done! Dinoguy2 14:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Majunga head updated. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That is awesome, I'm putting it in the article. Sheep81 07:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Majungasaurus scale

• 

As requested! Dinoguy2 00:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What happened to CZJ? ;) ArthurWeasley 01:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

jejeje better not. In my opinion, it's more convenient a serious scale diagram. Dropzink 02:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Chialingosaurus

Cheers. ArthurWeasley 06:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• 

Excelent drawing! Im struggling to find any skeletal reference (or any reference for that matter) however so i cant tell how accurate it is. [20] Steveoc 86 09:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks great! Also can't find any skeletal references, but the article says it's similar to Kentrosaurus, which your drawing certainly is. Dinoguy2 14:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Size charts

• 
• 
• 

Scale charts for Pachycephalosaurus, Iguanodon (only FA that lakced one), and Utahraptor. Pachy was tricky, since it's only known from the skull, and I couldn't find any refs for skull length other than generally about half a meter. The proportions of Mallon's illustration give a length less than the estimated 4.6m listed in the article, but those are probably based on assumptions of a longer tail apparently not supported by the Triebold specimen... Dinoguy2 14:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

They look good, i dont know why but Iguanodons tail looks slightly stumpy, it doesn't in Arthurs origanal and i don't think you've altered it? Its probably that Arthurs' drawing has some persective on it. In silluete, it makes it look alot larger than a 10m specimin would probably be, based of GSPs comes out closer to 3m to the top of the back, in that sort of pose. But the artical mentions the possiblity of larger specimins.

For utahraptor the artical says 6.5m, The only measurment I have hered of is 565mm for a femur, scaling GSP Deinonychus I also get about 6.5m (small difference i know). Scaling Jaime Headdens' Achillobator I get 6m. However the tail feathers might artifically add a little length aswell.

I can hardly find anything for pachy, this [21] seems to have a really large head, but looks abit dodgy? [22] says 3m in the caption?? Steveoc 86 15:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree the tail looks a bit short for Iggy, but all the other proportions came out about right, and that's the best side-view available on Commons. Trying to lengthen the tail comes out dodgy... Maybe Arthur can post the original refs he used, to check on this? They don't seem to be provided on the original image review. I figured about .5m length for the tail tip feathers on Utah, giving it a skeletal length of 6.5 as the article states. The femur would also end up at little over .5m in this case. As for the Pachy, the photo you linked looks like Sandy, so 3m sounds right--that specimen is not as large at the skull-only specimens the aticle estimate is based on, however, so I scaled up (still short of the article's estimate of 4.5m, but I'm guessing the authors of that one didn't have Sandy's proportions in mind. No other postcranial Pachy remains are known, afaik. Dinoguy2 01:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

This is GSPs Iguanodon if that helps [23] (the image didn't come with a scale bar, the one in the image is what i think is the approximate size of a 10m Iguano, ive imageined the head and neck staightened out). Iguanos tail isn't that long anyway but i think Arthurs is turned away from camera making it look shorter. Steveoc 86 08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, updated with longer tail. Dinoguy2 08:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

much better, thanks Steveoc 86 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)