Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:

WP:DINOART

Dinosaur image review manual archives

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.

If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be added to the requested images list or by including "Request:" in the section title here; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.

Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.

User-made paleoart should be approved during review before being added to articles. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).

Per project consensus, AI-generated paleoart is not accepted, and will be removed and nominated for deletion when encountered. From our experience, AI paleoart is always inaccurate, and since it derives from copyrighted, human-made artwork, is is both unethical and legally questionable.

For reviews of non-dinosaur paleoart, see WikiProject Palaeontology's paleoart review page:

Criteria sufficient for using an image:

  • If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.

Criteria for removing an image:

  • Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork. Criticism of restorations should avoid nitpicking of minor subjective or hypothetical details and should be phrased in a way that is respectful and constructive.
  • Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
    • Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing).
    • Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
    • Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
    • The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
  • Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
    • Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
    • Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
    • Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
    • Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
  • Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
    • Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
  • Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
    • Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
  • Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
    • Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
    • Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
    • Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
Click here to submit a new image for review

Manipulonyx skeletal

Pass no revisions necessary. Junsik1223 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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

  • Skeletal
    Skeletal

Reconstructed skeleton of the new Nemegt Fm. alvarezsaurid Manipulonyx. Comments appreciated as always. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Trusting the scalings, theres no reason not to give this a pass IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ferenceratops shqiperorum

Pass no revisions necessary. Junsik1223 (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Ddinodan (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Based on the description in the publication and the new skull of Ajkaceratops, I consider the reconstruction to be correct, although personally I think that ceratopsians without frills look rather bizarre. Aventadoros (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
Agreed on all points, they really are strange. Pass for me. Curious if the Ferenceratops postcrania was used for proportions, doesn’t really matter either way given the large temporal separation but I’d just like to know. Apologies, I didn’t realize it was in fact Ferenceratops, still a pass regardless. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coelophysis and Tameryraptor illustrations

Here are two illustrations I’ve made of the basal Late Triassic theropod Coelophysis bauri and the Cenomanian Carcharodontosaurid Tameryraptor markgrafi. Do you think there needs to be any sort of improvement to them or not?

MakairodonX (talk) 03:00 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Not sure why but the reply button is missing. The Coelophysis should have a longer tibia and slightly lankier arms. The head should be a bit smaller as well. I would also reduce the 'heel' on the back of the foot contacting the ground. Will review Tameryraptor later. Driptosaurus (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Xenovenator espinosai

Pass no revisions necessary. Junsik1223 (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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

Ddinodan (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
Minor comment: The blue-green tint of the feathers might need to be turned down a little. Also, the bald head might be a bit too speculative. ~2026-19884-7 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
The feather colouration is based on the iridescence seen in turkey vultures. Iridescence is represented in several fossil paravians, so I don't see why it would need to be "turned down a little".
Given our understanding of troodontid feathering comes only from diminutive Asian taxa (none of which are troodontines like Xenovenator), a bald head is equally as plausible as a fully feathered one. Ddinodan (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
I quite like it. Eye-catching but entirely reasonable. No reason every troodont should look the same. Pass for me. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
agreed with your point on the iridescence. Here it's only present on the contour feathers so it's not an issue. passDriptosaurus (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nanotyrannus (TD)

Nanotyrannus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Which species is this meant to depict? Driptosaurus (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
N. lancensis TotalDino (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeneen houssayi

Ddinodan (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah another one of these

Was making a drawing that includes Ferenceratops so yeah here's the PNG of it. I know some of you think we have too many Ferenceratops already and maybe even think I should pretend I intended this to be an Ajkaceratops but I do intend to also draw Ajkaceratops itself later so maybe in a week or two. Also I don't know if the unconventional pose is useful but I guess if you wanted to highlight features not visible from a lateral view you got this now. Olmagon (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Therizinosaurus cheloniformis illustration

MakairodonX (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Stegouros

Stegouros

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Tachiraptor

  • New version
    New version

Added to article by @Disfrasaurio: without review. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, my real name is Edwin Chávez, I'm biologist and illustrator. This drawing was originally submitted for the Illustraciencia website contest. Regarding the criteria chosen to reconstruct this dinosaur, the intention to depict Tachiraptor with feathers (even though there is no direct evidence that it had them) is inferred from genealogical relationships with other existing and/or better-described taxa. According to comparative anatomy, Tachiraptor shared similarities with other Early Jurassic theropods, such as Dilophosaurus and Cryolophosaurus. Phylogeny classifies it as a basal taxon and sister to the Averostra clade, a lineage that includes all theropods from the Middle Jurassic to the end of the Cretaceous. Under this line of thought, I decided to recreate the appearance of Tachiraptor similar to that of a medium-sized theropod, with similarities to the other genera already mentioned. I hope this material will be useful for educational purposes. Regards. Disfrasaurio (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
It seems technically well executed, but I can't comment on accuracy. I do think it would be more valuable to remove the sorrounding elements and text and have only the animal on a white background (maybe keeping the signature in small if @Disfrasaurio would like to keep it), this way it could be used in more contexts like phylogenies or image collages. Sclerotized (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
Good evening. I am reviewing the corrections and indeed, yes. I can clean up the background and leave the illustration in white if that seems better to you. Thank you for your feedback. Disfrasaurio (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Hello again. I just uploaded a new version of Tachiraptor on a white background. I look forward to your feedback. Happy Tuesday! Disfrasaurio (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeneen

Yeneen

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Foskeia

Foskeia

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Foskeia pelendonum

I am not commenting on the skull.

Ddinodan (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Curious regarding your choice to depict the animal with a rhamphotheca on the premaxilla when the paper suggests it lacked one. Not saying the paper is gospel, just want to know your reasoning. Driptosaurus (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
Because it would be the only ornithischian lacking a beak in front of its premaxilla if reconstructed without one. Ddinodan (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
There are a lot of folks skeptical about that interpretation, it doesn't make sense with what we currently know and the paper does a poor job of supporting it. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Sauropods

Some are in list articles but most are in esWiki. Other works by same author are reviewed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/Archive_6#Europe, including Aragosaurus, Galvesaurus, Losillasaurus and Lourinhasaurus, but got only bit of comments so may need to also reviewed? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

In this reconstruction, the proportions of Supersaurus make it look more like Diplodocus. The neck appears too short and horizontally oriented, and the tail too long.KoprX (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Is it just me, or do none of them have nostril and ear openings? FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Yantaloong

Yantaloong

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

This taxon is highly fragmentary, and its phylogenetic position is uncertain. In my opinion, the reconstruction is good to use; I do not see any glaring anatomical issues. Aventadoros (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Haolong dongi

Ddinodan (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Minor comment: Shouldn’t the spines be a little more tightly packed (or at least more obvious), or is this deliberate? Miracusaurs (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
The distribution here is based on the distribution present on the fossil. The reconstruction in the publication shows a much higher density than what is actually present. Ddinodan (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
At this distance, the small, abundant spikes wouldn't have been especially visible due to their miniscule size (seemingly similar density to human hair, and smaller in size). The exact abundance and distribution of the somewhat larger spikes is not directly observable from the fossil (which only preserves integument in localized patches). Consequently, Dan's reconstruction is a valid if conservative representation of the animal's appearance as based on the preserved and described anatomy. The paper's life reconstruction presents a somewhat more dense array of larger spikes, but life reconstructions in paper's should not be mistaken as factual in nature over what's attested in the text and fossils. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:25, 7 February 2026 (UTC)
Is this reconstruction meant to represent an adult individual or the actual individual preserved? Driptosaurus (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
This reconstruction is based on what is conclusively known about the animal, thus it is based on the preserved individual. Ddinodan (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
Great, in that case it looks good and matches the material. Pass. Love the way you did the tail scales. Driptosaurus (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Yantaloong lini

Ddinodan (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Dasosaurus

Dasosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Dasosaurus tocantinensis

Ddinodan (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Pass. Love the colors, vibrant and plausible. Driptosaurus (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Dasosaurus skeletal

A skeletal reconstruction of sauropod dinosaur, Dasosaurus, created by User:Retepretsim was added to the page without any review. Please review for accuracy. Unofficial Jurassic World (talk) 07:53, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The neck looks too thick, but this may be an art style issue. I don't think human silhouettes should be OC. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
@Retepretsim:, join the discussion please before adding image in article? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
the human silloughute is of this guy from how to train your dragon, which is probably a bit of a copyright issue concidering the images copyright. - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Ajkaceratops

I know I said I'd draw this over a month ago but I was lazy and procrastinated. Olmagon (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe the top and bottom empty space could be cropped? FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Haolong dongi illustration

An impression of Haolong dongi, a small iguanodontian ornithopod which hails from the Yixian Formation of northeastern China and is unique among all known ornithischians for possessing a coat of porcupine-like quills on much of its body.

MakairodonX (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Minor comment: I have no idea why so many reconstructions, like yours, have the same colors as the reconstruction in the paper. As far as I know, no melanosomes have been found, and blue and orange are unlikely for medium-sized terrestrial herbivores. ~2026-10749-45 (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
I see. Since I might do another reconstruction of the animal using a different color scheme than the one used in the paper, what do you think are appropriate colors for mid-sized herbivores instead of blue or orange? MakairodonX (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, but maybe colors like bovids would be okay? Also the fourth finger (the rearmost touching the ground) should not have claws, and the hind toes shouldn't be so splayed and birdlike. ~2026-13785-11 (talk) 11:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
As far as I am aware the quills are not as dense as you have depicted. The specimen itself has sparse, short quills that aren't as packed together. More like elephant hair in terms of appearance. Driptosaurus (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Equijubus

Equijubus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Unreviewed Spinosaurus mirabilis reconstruction

Fail suggested revisions were not made; image deleted. Junsik1223 (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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

  • Speculative Spinosaurus mirabilis reconstruction by GroxyRex
    Speculative Spinosaurus mirabilis reconstruction by GroxyRex

Unreviewed Spinosaurus mirabilis reconstruction by User:GroxyRex. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  • Didn't Spinosaurus hallux reach the ground and point forwards? And what are those huge bumps around the head? FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
  • The neck also seems a bit too long when compared to the skeletal in Figure 3 of Sereno et al. (2026); granted, not much of the neck material has been recovered, but I don't think the recovered remains support a neck length shown in that reconstruction
Junsik1223 (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
I think the crest looks a bit too short, comparing it to the skull photo in the paper. Additionally, the paper says that the crest would have had a keratinous sheath like a helmeted guinea fowl, so the crest should actually appear larger than the bone on the skull alone would seem to imply. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
The paper shows substantial variation in crest size, shape, curvature, etc... this isn't out of the question. Driptosaurus (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

At the very least this needs cropping, there's so much dead space around it. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I've cropped the file. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spinosaurus mirabilis

Ddinodan (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That was fast! I have to say I was looking forward to your interpretation of the animal. I've got no complaints accuracy-wise. Great work. Driptosaurus (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
Pass: Great reconstruction! I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Spinosaurus mirabilis illustration

Impression of the Spinosaurus species S.mirabilis from the Cenomanian of Niger, with a female at the left and a male at the right.

MakairodonX (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  • The proportions seem to be off. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    I’ll fix them in a future update of the picture. MakairodonX (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sarcosaurus

Sarcosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 09:00, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

  • The limb musculature seems rather underdeveloped? FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
    Could you be more specific? Like the legs need to be thicker? TotalDino (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Some unreviewed S. mirabilis

Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  • I tagged the last one as no evidence of permission. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
Second one has incorrect teeth, neck is a bit short and thick compared to what is inferred for spinosaurs. Driptosaurus (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)
The last one is most likely a copyright violation, and the second one's proportion, end of the snout & anterior dentary and teeth do not match the known remains and the skeletal in Fig. 3 of Sereno et al. (2026). The first one seems better than the other two, but the end of the snout & anterior dentary shape doesn't seem to be well-reflected compared to Ddinodan's artwork. Junsik1223 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Alaskacephale Reevaluation

This has been our reconstruction of Alaskacephale for over a decade and a half, but having stopped to read about the taxon I am concerned it does not meaningfully represent it. Only a portion of the squamosal (the back of the dome) is known, and it's characterized by two rows of large, rectangular to polygonal nodes in a pattern that diverges towards the sides of the head and converge into one row towards the centre. This isn't evident in the reconstruction at all. There appears to be three rows, possibly four (they are hard to distinguish from the scalation), and they certainly don't diverge at all. Little attention appears to have been paid to their shape, even affording the possibilit they could have supported larger keratin spikes. Given the only preserved part of the animal does not match the art, I don't think continued use of this reconstruction without modification is inappropriate. Few reconstructions of Alaskacephale truly depicting the taxon, rather than a generic pachycephalosaurine, appear to exist and I cannot help but wonder if our prominently featured art is spreading misinterpretations of the animal. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I myself looked at whe holotypic material and while its fragmentary, it is indeed very different from the restoration. I think that a new restoration, or some skeletal would definitely be in order for the taxon. --Montanoceratops (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Haolong (TD)

Haolong

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The densely 'furry' pelt illustrated here is not consistent with the preserved integument of the holotype. Same with the quill distribution and scutate caudal scales. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Images by Flutua

Uploaded by @Flutua:. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

While the lightning in the Spinosaurus piece looks cool, I worry it may propagate misconceptions about the Mesozoic when used in an educational context. With that element removed I think it should be fine, assuming the anatomy is fine (which it looks so to me, but I am not a theropod person). LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:30, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
The eye placement on Pycnonemosaurus looks quite off. I would suggest looking at skull specimens of related genera such as Abelisaurus and Ekrixinatosaurus for a more reasonable position of the eye. --Mjmannella (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Kryptohadros kallaiae

Ddinodan (talk) 03:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Pass - matches skull anatomy and general proportions as shown in paper, as well as general knowledge of hadrosaur anatomy. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Alaskacephale gangloffi

Ddinodan (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
Displays diagnostic shape and arrangement of orientation in the taxon, Pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 15:14, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Kryptohadros

Kryptohadros

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No comments on the anatomy, but the enormous white space should be cropped. ~2026-13785-11 (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Sinocephale skull diagram

I personally think it's good and have no major issues with it, but posting it here just to make sure it's considered a pass. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, while it's here, I wonder if we could also use it as the basis for a general pachycephalosaur skull bone diagram with labels? We only have very old ones with abbreviated labels. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
I think that would work. I am surprised that there aren't really much recent skull diagrams for pachycephalosaurs. Junsik1223 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Might be worth producing such diagrams for more clades with strange skull shapes if they don't exist already. Would look nice on those pages, I'm sure The Morrison Man (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
If I were to produce diagrams of the sort I would not use Sinocephale as the basis for them I would just use the Stegoceras base, or Prenocephale. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 03:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
Sure, this one already seems to use Stegoceras, so that's what I meant. Would also be better on the Stegoceras page than the old diagram currently used. FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Incisivosaurus

Incisivosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Olorotitan

Olorotitan

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino TotalDino (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI