Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology
(Redirected from Wikipedia:PALEOART)

Discontinued yearly archives:
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of non-dinosaur paleoart (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post them 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 paleoart 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, and if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed. 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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. Drastic 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"[5] (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category[6]), 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).

Guidelines for use of paleoart, adapted from WikiProject Dinosaurs' image review page:

Criterion sufficient for using an image:

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 In these cases the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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

Criteria sufficient to remove 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: If Lystrosaurus is reconstructed with four fingers.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied skeletal elements (via phylogenetic bracketing).
    • Example: If an hesperornithid bird known only from postcranial elements is reconstructed without teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
  • Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
  • Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
    • Example: Scaphognathus should not be depicted without pycnofibres, since phylogenetic bracketing implies that it had them.
  • Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
    • Example: Plesiosaurs reconstructed with overly flexible necks.
    • Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
  • Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
    • Example: Brontoscorpio chasing a Cephalaspis, 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

  1. ^ Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

Images in review

edit

Teraterpeton illustration review, plus, what prehistoric animal could be in need of an ilustration?, i'm a paleoartist with free time

edit

[7]

LiterallyMiguel (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The level of sprawling on the limbs looks pretty extreme. Compare [8]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i could argue that, based on the trilophosaurus skeletal, the illustration you showed has actually kind of short arms, and that my depiction is within a natural range of motion for the creature, between the usually depicted limb that's far away back and the other far away forward [9]. So like a mid-step position LiterallyMiguel (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oof the skeletal reconstruction you proposed is by David Peters (paleoartist) who is not a reliable and modifies skeletal reconstruction with his own interpretation. Better to use this[10] even if you think it is not so different. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yeah its not that different LiterallyMiguel (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the point is to ignore Peters' work entirely (found on his blogs "Reptile Evolution" and "The Pterosaur Heresies") since he usually introduces many misinterpretations due to his unorthodox methods. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i mean; ok, but that's not really the point, judging by other skeletals (like the one from its own paper) the arm lenght is fine in my opinion, and its in a natural middle-ground between the usually depicted far-away-back and far-away-forward foot pose, unless there's evidence of teraterpeton's legs being shorter which i haven't found yet LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm jumping in kinda late here, but Teraterpeton seems to have maxillary prognathism. Skye McDavid (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other illustrations by LiterallyMiguel

edit

Here are all of this user's uploads (including Teraterpeton, discussed above). I can't speak to the little anatomical details, but they seem quite good artistically. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks!, i also wonder what other species could be in need of a good paleo-art, like i did with Puercosuchus, which even with how interesting it is, there's ZERO other drawings of it i the internet! LiterallyMiguel (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remember to add new uploads here too, LiterallyMiguel, I added your latest. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be mud obscuring the tail, but Angistorhinus seems to have a very short tail? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its just the angle! LiterallyMiguel (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems new arts are uploaded and added to page. Are there any issues? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Various unreviewed arts from Commons

edit

For Makarkinia, as I see there are no morphological issue but any opinions? This blogpost estimated flying posture of Kalligrammatids[11] and shows some videos which shows slow-motion of flight of neuropterans, comparing that this would be fine. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd choice to show a close up head with closed eyes in that Itemirus. Not ideal for our purposes. The Alanqa seems pretty wonky. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am retired from this topic area. I'd like not to be pinged anymore for these. Thanks, Super Ψ Dro 09:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see. I will keep it in my mind. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Erieopterus seems to be taken from this 3D model (Link). It has some anatomical problem:
  1. Operculum underneath tergite 7 (opisthosomal segment 8), which didn't exist in eurypterid, the segment is limbless across crown-group euchelicerates.
  2. The ventral region around the chelicerae was over-simplified (in this resolution the bilobed doublure and mouth opening should be visible IMO).
Junnn11 (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptovenator

edit
 
Cryptovenator.

I made basic improvements to an old Cryptovenator illustration, as I said before I'm rusty with synapsids. I added lips, put gingiva, gave more shadow to necessary areas, put a more natural and neutral color to certain areas and modified the neural spines. Any comment? Levi bernardo (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some more soft tissue in the occipital region? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly to this area? I also suspected that, ok I'll do it. Levi bernardo (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering its position close to Sphenacodon, would the short neural spines really have looked like a sail? FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had originally drawn it somewhat similar to Sphenacodon and with certain similarities also to Ctenospondylus. In the redraw I did almost a decade ago I did that combination again. But I think it will be time to rethink it and perhaps be more attached to Sphenacodon, but I wouldn't like to completely abandon the high vertebrae either. One option would be to delete everything beyond the atlas, but aesthetically I like seeing the neck in this one. Now, regarding the appearance of the vertebrae, I think that the most convenient thing would be to blur the area where they emerge to give a more natural transition and with more tissue, but as for the tips, it is a good question to know if they will really have been similar to what is known about Dimetrodon Levi bernardo (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The soft tissue augmentation is ready, and also the modification of the sail Levi bernardo (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, seems better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thalattosuchian

edit

Those images are added to pages without review, by @Jackosaurs:. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The hindlimb range of motion on Maledictosuchus and Rhacheosaurus seems a little suspect? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but there is no real studies for the leg motion that I know of. 108.28.242.40 (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The art style looks unusually similar to Ddinodan’s art. Jackosaurs, are you the same person? 2001:4453:551:4100:55A6:B045:B00B:86C4 (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I’m am not the same person. We use the same program so maybe that’s why the style is similar. 108.28.242.40 (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tealliocaris etheridgii

edit

At Ta-tea-two-te-to's request I made this reconstruction of Tealliocaris. How is it?

 

Qohelet12 (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Clark (2013) is the most recent publication to have described T. etheridgii so the comments I'm about to make are based on that:
  • By my count, this drawing shows 8 spines on the lateral margin of the carapace, whereas the study states there should be at least 10 (see figures 14 and 17a).
  • The antennal scale seems to have too many spines, which are also too small (see figure 16b).
Olmagon (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok how about now? Qohelet12 (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah this looks good to me now. Olmagon (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kilianicaris

edit
 

New reconstruction, based on Laville et al. Qohelet12 (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I see there are no issues compared to Fig. 23. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Koleken

edit

Hello. It's been a while, but can I ask for review for my reconstruction again? This time I tried to reconstruct Koleken mostly based on the skeletal reconstruction from the official paper (?) in this page... https://novataxa.blogspot.com/2024/05/koleken.html For the scale with human, I am basing it on the femur length that is described from the paper which is 50 or so cm if I remember correctly? So that is for the reference. Is my reconstruction good enough to be put in the Koleken page? If the human scale is jarring or say "unartistic" and inaccurate, I can just omit it from the image... Thank you very much as always and sorry for my bad english!

 
Koleken inakayali

DD (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given its status as a carnotaurine, I'd revise the scalation to be more similar to this. The right foot looks a bit strange to me, as if it's on tip-toes. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The foot claws look overly curved, and like they're reaching below the line of the feet themselves, which would be impossible. Dinosaur palaeoart should be posted to WP:Dinoart, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I guess you are right. I just realized it is too curvy..
Oh I didn't aware that there is a page dedicated to dinosaur paleoart review.. Thank you for both of you guys input! I will not upload it then if there are some major issues.. DD (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aw how could I forget about that paper.. For the right foot, yes I made it to looks like its just about to lift from the ground DD (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the "official" skeletal diagram was for whatever reason not created with a scale bar(‽) (and wasn't actually published in the paper) and no size estimate seems to be given in the paper, the human scale seems to fall under original research. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

two pterosaur holotypes

edit
  •  
    Ordosipterus planignathus
  •  
    Caviramus schesaplanensis

Just quick illustrations of the type specimens, not much that I expect to be controversial but putting up for review in case anyone has comments. Skye McDavid (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could a colour key be added in the description for Caviramus? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done. Skye McDavid (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macrauchenia patachonica

edit

Hey folks, here's a reconstruction of Macrauchenia with saiga-esque facial tissue.

Triloboii (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I may as well also upload a recon of Macrauchenia's tropical cousin, Xenorhinotherium
  •  

    • Triloboii (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hemiauchenia may have comments? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first Macrauchenia image is difficult to judge proportions due to the angle, but it looks fine to me. Xenorhinotherium also looks fine. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Opabinia

    edit
    •  
    •  
      Second version (I decided to upload them as separate files)

    I finally updated my ecological reconstruction of Opabinia. Qohelet12 (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I could only comment on arthropods, the Opabinia looks good, while the first 3 leg pairs of Burgessia could be a little bit longer, representing the specialized exopods (see 1).
    Anyway, that's an excellent piece of artwork! Junnn11 (talk) 01:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Burgessia ok now? and thank you! Qohelet12 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks ok now. Thanks for the update! Junnn11 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The body segments of Opabinia are not arthrodized or sclerotized, what you see in the fossils are raised ridges of the soft cuticle. They make a gentle slope back into the next segment, with zero overlap. These ridges also increase in height and definition towards the middle posterior, starting very faint behind the head. It is important that they are not depicted as sclerotized, arthropod-like segments, and they should fade into smooth cuticle before they reach the flaps.
    In terms of proportions, I really liked your previous verion - Opabinia is very tall for a lobopodian. Lastly, Opabinia had a long-ish distinct neck region (see Budd and Daley [2012] figs 3a, 3e, and 8a). The head should be faintly annulated, continuing from the proboscis, with the annulations fading away around the neck region. There is probably no external 'segmentation' between the head and neck. I won't make any suggestions regarding legs, as although I believe they had them, this is still not agreed upon. Also, given that this is an ecological reconstruction before anything, I won't complain if you choose to keep it as is. As always it is a very nice drawing. PaleoEquii (talk) 08:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Working on it, and thank you! Qohelet12 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The new version is excellent. Thank you again for all your work. PaleoEquii (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ornithoprion reconstructions

    edit
     
     
     

    Several skeletal reconstructions and diagrams done of Ornithoprion based on the figures provided in Zangerl's 1966 description. I've talked about this over in the Discord and these should be distinct enough to be Creative Commons, but let me know if they need to be differentiated further (and of course if there are any anatomical issues). No photos of the fossils are available on commons (Or anywhere but the description, for that matter) and even then they are quite severely crushed, so I'm not sure what can be done besides closely copying the figures in the paper to accurately represent them. I'm working on finishing up an extensive rewrite of the currently very barebones page for this guy, so I thought it could use some images besides the frankly horribly inaccurate life restoration I did a couple of years ago. Gasmasque (talk) 05:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know enough about Chondrichthyans to comment on anatomy, but the institutional abbreviation should be FMNH not CNHM. Skye McDavid (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Will correct, good catch! The paper is from before the name change, so it must have just slipped my mind to adjust that while doing this. Gasmasque (talk) 06:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither do I, but is there a reason for the gap between the rostrum and the Meckel's cartilage? Were they disconnected? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zangerl's original figures show the two with a gap between them, and it is suggested that the rostrum was articulated and flexible and not fused to the Meckel's. If this illustration seems implausibly exaggerated or confusing then it can be changed, but I do want to emphasize that this was an apparently flexible structure. Gasmasque (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying, I think that's fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A Bunch of Restorations that I forgot to have reviewed

    edit
    •  
      Carbonodraco lundi
    •  
      Elliotsmithia longiceps
    •  
      Haqelpycnodus picteti
    •  
      Khirtharia inflata
    •  
      Limnocyon verus
    •  
      Trypanognathus remigiusbergensis
    •  
      Turfanosuchus dabanensis
    •  
      Gyrodus hexagonus
    •  
      Rhodotheratus parvus
    •  
      Reiszorhinus olsoni
    •  
      Eothyris parkeyi

    SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Skull anatomy and osteoderms look OK for Turfanosuchus, but I'm wondering about the limb proportions and stance. Based on the known limb proportions [13] and other gracilisuchids [14], the forelimbs should be much shorter than the hindlimbs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for taking so long to reply, I can definitely see that and certain things were corrected later on including removing osteoderms on the tail and removing claws on the outer two digits on the front limbs. I should be able to fix this later today along with the proportions on the other Asian taxa in the family that I’ve yet to upload to wikimedia. SeismicShrimp (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed problems with the proportions SeismicShrimp (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaiasia

    edit
     

    Made a drawing of the new giant tetrapodomorph in a swimming pose, leaving it here for review. Olmagon (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This may be a matter of perspective, but the eyes seem too laterally directed considering the dorsal position of the orbits (cf. the lateral reconstruction in Fig. 2). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Entothyreos

    edit
     

    I made a model of Entothyreos synnaustrus, a new collinsovermid from the Burgess Shale. Of course, there is no Entothyreos page for it to accompany yet, but its here when such a page exists. PaleoEquii (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Kermitops

    edit
     
    Kermitops

    This is my attempt at creating an illustration of Kermitops. The body is based on that of a salamander, while the eye is based on the eye of Hyalinobatrachium dianae (chosen because it resembles the eye of Kermit the frog). Does the illustration seems suitable to use? If there are any glaring issues, let me know. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)'[reply]

    I don't think proportion of body matches with other amphibamiformes. See Doleserpeton[15] or Eoscopus[16] for reference. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ta-tea-two-te-to: Thanks for letting me know, I've updated the file and I think the proportions should be more accurate now. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as I have updated the proportions and have not received any other comments, I will assume that the image is good to go. If not, let me know. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It hasn't even been a day since the review started. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I'm not entirely familiar with this process so I wasn't sure how long it's supposed to take. Di (they-them) (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ergilin Dzo Formation Size Chart?

    edit

    Can someone please do a size chart for the fauna of the Ergilin Dzo formation? it would be really helpful and informative.

    Callawayia

    edit
     

    Here's a life restoration of the Canadian Triassic ichthyosaur Callawayia, which, up until now, had no images on Commons at all. I've detailed my process and rationale for reconstructing it the way I have in the file description. How does it look? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No issues that I can see. If there is a gap in the preserved caudals, how was the total length inferred (I don't have access to check right now)? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just followed what Nicholls & Manabe (2001) said about this, namely: "A 25 cm gap is present in the middle of the tail, following vertebra 93, suggesting that approximately 15 vertebrae are missing." --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 22:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Shucaris ankylosskelos

    edit
     

    I made this model of shucaris appendages and wanted to know if it's good and accurate enough to add to the article. Is there anything to change? Wawrow (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As I see it seems fine but probably good to see @Junnn11:'s opinion. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's accurate enough to use.
    The only thing I'm not sure is the inward curving of endite 6-13 (AFAIK there's only lateral view for these endites, which can't tell if it was curved inward), but that's not a major concern IMO. Junnn11 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the reply! I'll try to add these reconstructions to the article when i can. Wawrow (talk) 10:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added them along with a new section that'll probably need reviewing. Wawrow (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    another turntable animation, this one shows the 1st podomere of the claw. Wawrow (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    New DBogdanov works

    edit

    New works from the user. (I personally hope if they upload new version of Ptychodus...) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the purple on that Geikia even achievable with skin or keratin in synapsids? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider Larrayal (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     
    Very easy to fix, what would we want to change it into? Red maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference between the mandrill and the Geikia is that the former is still recognisably blue-on-red... the latter is just straight-up violet. I'm OK with a less vibrant purple. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I toned the purple down and fixed some other blemishes, how is it? FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems better. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tseajaia and Yonghesuchus restorations

    edit
    •  
      Tseajaia campi
    •  
      Yonghesuchus sangbiensis

    SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't have any comment on these but looking at Commons you don't seem to have got around to uploading the Youngina drawing we were discussing on Discord a few months back. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got a bit busy with stuff so I never finished it but all it needs are osteoderms so maybe like 10-20 minutes of work. I can get Youngina and both of the Temnospondyls I have on commons done later today. SeismicShrimp (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unclear what is claw and what is soft tissue in the forelimbs of Yonghesuchus, not even clear if the forelimbs have claws at all. Separating them with linework (as in the hindlimbs) or different colors would be a simple fix. Skye McDavid (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did both recommendations just to be safe SeismicShrimp (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a reason why the osteoderms stop short of the tail in Yonghesuchus? Same deal for the Turfanosuchus above, where I saw you removed them. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    it seems to be a gracilisuchid thing, was in talks with armin about it SeismicShrimp (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Straight-tusked elephant size comparison

    edit
     

    Based on previous work by @Steveoc 86: [17]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No comment on accuracy but the text looks a little crowded here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Amananulam sanogoi

    edit
     
    Amananulam sanogoi reconstruction

    My traditional pen + pencil reconstruction of Amananulam sanogoi, largely based on modern sea snakes and alethinophidians such as boas. No species within this family have genus/species pages with artwork, to my knowledge, and only one has a created page. This is my first time ever using wikipedia to submit my own artwork, and while I may fear some aspects of this reconstruction are too speculative, I may be able to make minor edits per your suggestions. While I plan to color this, I'm uploading the uncolored version first as it may be easier on the eyes and more anatomically digestible. Edit: this specific individual is a female, hence the lack of spurs. Lythronax246 (talk) 21:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    More recons

    edit
    •  
      Notobrachyops picketti
    •  
      Bothriceps australis
    •  
      Youngina capensis
    •  
      Thabanchuia oomie
    •  
      Kourerpeton bradyi
    •  
      Prolacerta broomi

    SeismicShrimp (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think all of these look good. I can't recall ungual counts off the top of my head for non-archosaurian archosauromorphs, but thats a minor and fixable detail if incorrect. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In at least the largest specimen of Prolacerta, the femur is a good 50% longer than the humerus [18]. The opposite seems to be true here? Or is it the posture? Also, Figure 9 in the paper has a new skull reconstruction that gives it somewhat larger eyes and a mild overbite. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. it's the posture
    2. the head looks fine to me but i can make changes if need be SeismicShrimp (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eltanin impact

    edit
     
    Paleoartistic depiction of a megatsunami caused by the Eltanin impact hitting the east coast of New Zealand during the Early Pleistocene. We observe a moa fleeing from the waves, and a dermochelyid turtle being dragged by the water.

    Made this artwork to be included in the Eltanin impact page. I hope its fitting for review. YellowPanda2001 (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Very few waves in a tsunami crest, which does make it a bit less visually dramatic. Whether that is an issue with this piece that makes it need revisions or not, I cannot say, but it is something others should keep in mind when reviewing this piece. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Palaeotherium

    edit

    Hey folks, another Eocene mammal from France with a reconstruction and size chart; Palaeotherium.

    •  
      Palaeotherium medium
    •  
      Size chart of a selection of the many sp. of Palaeotherium

    Triloboii (talk) 03:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a particular reason for the size of the ears? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    just looking at ungulates that live in similar environments today Triloboii (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Megatherium life restoration by ДиБгд

    edit
     

    While this restoration isn't used in the Megatherium article proper, it is widely used elsewhere, including at the collage in the infobox of Xenarthra. Looking at the head, there are a number of issues. 1. While this was a popular historical paleoart meme, Megatherium almost certainly didn't have a protrusible tongue based on a 2010 study of its hyoid bones [19]. 2. Megatherium probably had a prehensile upper lip similar to that of a black rhinoceros, see this 2006 paper which has a good restoration [20], which isn't shown in this image. The first issue and probably the second issue are fixable with editing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can fix her. Well, the Engwiki article does use this[21] image which has the same muzzle issue, so I'll try to correct both. FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the easiest angle to show this snout morphology from, but I've updated the image to show something like in that paper, what do you think, Hemiauchenia? If that's fine, I'll fix the landscape image too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks fantastic. In addition to the landscape the Xenarthra collage will also need fixing [22] (which just a simple job of replacing the original with your fixed version) Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, updated the others too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vishnuictis

    edit

    This image is added to the article without review. Seems it is based on modern Viverrids but any opinions for this? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I found exactly same skeletal reconstruction in DeviantArt.[23] Is image uploader same as original author? Also found some description of article of Vishnuictis which is citation needed, is somewhat similar to description in this deviant. (difference is upper length being 3.4 m instead of 2.4 m) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ianthodon schultzei reconstruction

    edit

    I’m not sure how this works, I have been told to share here so here I try

    The premaxilla of Eohupehsuchus seems a little short relative to the fossil. I'm not sure the eyes would protrude from the skull like that? (Slate Weasel might be able to weigh in too) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs)

    Mekosuchine stuff

    edit

    Two illustrations of mekosuchines. The first one displays the diversity of the group, comparing Paludirex, Quinkana, Mekosuchus and Baru darrowi (to scale). The other is a size comparisson of Quinkana fortirostrum with a human based on the estimates of Flannery (1990) and Sobbe et al. (2013). I also got a skull recon in the works but that will take some more time to finish and recieve feedback from a first hand source so really thats not relevant right now.Armin Reindl (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Equus ovodovi

    edit
     
    A sketch of Equus ovodovi using colored and mechanical pencils on paper

    A colored-pencil sketch of Equus ovodovi, taking into account the general cranial proportions of Equus coliemensis (the only Sussemione with skull material) and the general body and limb proportions of zebras and wild asses, the clades most closely related to Sussemiones. Coloration primarily inspired by Asiatic and African wild asses. Dynamoterror1011 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A Bunch of Restorations by me

    edit
    •  
      Gracilisuchus stipanicicorum
    •  
      Ticinosuchus ferox
    •  
      Erpetosuchus granti
    •  
      Brachyprosopus broomi
    •  
      Eodicynodon oosthuizeni
    •  
      Vaughnictis smithae

    SeismicShrimp (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gracilisuchus generally looks fine, but the lower jaw seems too tall. There is some crushing in MCZ 4117 but the thinness of the lower jaw is fairly consistent across specimens. Either way, this is a substantial improvement over the current image. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review&oldid=1242673942"