Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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 If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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

Alamosaurus & Utetitan size chart update

With the description of Utetitan, it would make sense to update the size chart, with the aim of de-Alamosaurus-ing it. Because all the North American titanosaurids are fragmentary, there is a load of uncertainty as to the size and proportions of these specimens. Possible update can be seen here. In this version, I have included the Alamosaurus type specimen, even though it's just a scapula.

One key issue is the large cervical series, BIBE 45854, which could impact nearly all the silhouettes. There are a couple of ways people have cross-scaled the specimen. One way is using the juvenile TMM 43621-1 as the primary guide, which results in larger-bodied restorations, like Paul's and Hartman's skeletals. The silhouettes in this diagram follow this interpretation. However, Tykoski & Fiorillo (2017) and a couple of online skeletals, have used a large-ish specimen, TMM 41541-1, that preserves both dorsals and cervicals. It seems to suggest a larger neck to body ratio. Alas, the specimen is not well described at the moment. For example, some of these interpretations suggest the BIBE 45854 cervicals come from an animal similar in size to USNM 15560, just with a large neck, like seen here and here, and here. Paul also briefly mentions the uncertainty over cross-scaling BIBE 45854, but does not specifically mention TMM 41541-1 as the reason for this. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

It looks good to me! I think it’s smart to not just label them Utetitan and Alamosaurus and instead label them as the holotype of each, as I’ve seen some skepticism towards Utetitan and there’s a good chance it might become a nomen dubium in the future. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to label the chart as "Maastrichtian North American titanosaurs" (or titanosaurians), given that the use of the family Titanosauridae has been abandoned by most researchers? Sittaco (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just using the terminology in Paul's paper. I've changed to 'Titanosaurs' also fixed a typo.Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Edmontosaurus annectens

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

---

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any issues. Aventadoros (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass likewise for me. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:2A35:8720:A123:B27D (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Instant pass: As always a good reconstruction based on the verey latest studies. Not sure what this means for the other reconstructions we have, though -- do we update them (as we used to do) or just replace them all with Dan's (as has been an unspoken rule for about a year now?) 112.201.199.64 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

We need to replace your obsession over me with a better bit Ddinodan (talk) 23:59, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry. I just snapped, I guess. 112.201.199.64 (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Why do you keep "snapping" when you're told this adds nothing every time? Anyway, if this level of disruption continues, we might have to call for administrator action. FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

See this gem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ddinodan

This same person (I believe) commented on Dan's talk, saying how his art was being "plastered everywhere". 2600:4040:5100:FC00:9FE9:7231:F789:C971 (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

It was never my intent to personally attack anyone, but I understand why my comments caused concern. Do note that I have Asperger’s syndrome, which is why as much as I wanted to stop, I ended up snapping. But I’ll do my best to refrain from further discussion about that as much as I can. But be warned, though, I can’t guarantee a full stop. 112.201.199.64 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

No, you have to do a full stop. I also have Asperger's, but you shouldn't behave like this. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:8E9D:C4C6:C83:3229 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll try my best. 112.201.199.64 (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

OK. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:54D1:BBC1:9480:EAC2 (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

As someone who was also diagnosed, you should know that it is distasteful to use your difference as an excuse. Your rhetoric is tiresome, and we'd rather you dedicate your time on something more productive.

We'd rather not drop a ballistic on your wikipedia presence. Please make good on your promise this time.

PostScript: I regret to inform you that some users have disagreed with my stance on not dropping anything on your Wikipedia presence. Well, i should say that this collection of users also includes me, for disclosure's sake.Anthropophoca (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

You know what. I quit. I will stop engaging with this page as much as possible. 112.201.199.64 (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

@FunkMonk Please make this entire argument into a separate section, considering it has nothing to do with the reconstruction. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Aside from the top two comments. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Works by Benwrops

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.

---

• 
  Caenagnathus
• 
  Scolosaurus

Found in Commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Doesn't the first claw of the Caenagnathus look too massive? Would be an easy fix, perhaps notify the artist about this page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Benwrops The Morrison Man (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  Should be fixed! It's my first time doing stuff like this with wikipedia so let me know if the change isn't visible or if there's anything else I need to edit! Benwrops (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Benwrops there's a lot of empty space around them, which makes them even smaller at thumbnail size, could some of it be cropped? FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

That Scolosaurus looks low-slung. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I can do that no problem! Benwrops (talk) 02:23, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I can do that no problem! Benwrops (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, mistype! I intended to give the Scolosaurus a little more fat on the belly as to not adhere super-strictly to the skeleton. I can trim it back a little if the proportions seem off and I can crop the image so they appear larger Benwrops (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Caenagnathus is a pass for me. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Athenar bermani

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) 05:44, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Pass: This is a fragmentary taxon and we do not know any other anatomical details, so showing the general structure of a dicreosaurid is correct in my opinion. Aventadoros (talk) 10:15, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Athenar (TD)

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.

---

Athenar

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Minor revision: It seems to me that the soft tissues do not completely cover the teeth in both jaws. Aventadoros (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

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

Nanotyrannus lancencis & N. lethaeus

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) 03:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

In general they both look great, but I'm not sure if the skull on lancensis is correct. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The skull on lancensis is correct. This is based on a particular specimen, per the image description. Ddinodan (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware, I don't think that sort of kink before the nasal fenestra is represented in the actual fossil. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

There is a ridge of keratin on the nasal. Ddinodan (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate it as an aesthetic choice, but for the sake of Wiki use it may be best to make the keratin ridge follow the shape of the nasal more closely, as the current shape does somewhat imply an incorrect skull shape. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

This is a non-issue and will not be adjusted. Ddinodan (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The cranial profile is based on my schematic, which attempted to reconstruct the anteroposteriorly disarticulated cranium and account for taphonomic disturbance in the posterior skull (i.e jugal, squamosal, quadratojugal). Furthermore, said schematic was given some notes by James Napoli, who had said the reconstructed skull provided in Zanno and Napoli 2025 had issues in the scan mesh and sutural contacts, and more importantly, that the rostrum of NCSM 40000 was dorsoventrally flattened somewhat. With this in mind, the above reconstruction is perfectly reasonable, and strictly speaking, the "truest" form of the skull will be hitherto unknown until the forthcoming osteology is formally published. LancianIdolatry (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Would it be possible to share this schematic? I can’t seem to find it and it would be helpful to be able to directly compare. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I've decided to not make it public because there are several internal concerns that I have about it's cranial topology and I am far more content merely waiting for the osteology. More importantly though, I miscommunicated with Dan, and his art was based on an earlier and different edit of mines made in parallel with my schematic, and for that misunderstanding I apologize. With that in mind, many of the original comments still hold true- the shape is strictly unknown and what can be said and compared with N. lethaeus demonstrates the shape of the cranium in the above profile is still fine as-is. LancianIdolatry (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I completely understand the logic, but I’m afraid I just don’t see a way that the head of the N. lancensis can fit into currently published reconstructions. I have no doubt that the schematic used is more accurate, but without being able to look at it there’s no way to verify. With that in mind, for me at least, the N. lethaeus is a PASS, but I’m afraid I have to say NEEDS REVISION for the N. lancensis, at least until the reference used can be made public. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

You can see the uncrushed skull under my illustration here: https://imgur.com/DxmXuqx

I am not adjusting the keratinous crest when it constitutes perhaps 3-5 pixels in height difference. I recall when Tameryraptor was published, almost the exact opposite was what was requested of me; that I deviate further from the existing material to satisfy what ultimately boils down to subjective opinions on what is and is not highly speculative.

Extremely minor things like these are not what constitute appropriate critique, and instead err on the side of nitpicking. Ddinodan (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. It’s definitely closer than I thought (though seems to be based on NCSM 40000 rather than the holotype as indicated by the description. But the nasal/premaxilla contact does seem to be displaced, and I still feel that the crest on the nose is a rather big deal as it significantly affects the silhouette. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It is a crest. Of course it is going to affect the silhouette, it does so on every tyrannosaur reconstruction that has one.

The description does say NCSM 40000. Ddinodan (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

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

Utetitan (TD)

Utetitan

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Nanotyrannus prey capture

Nanotyrannus attacks a small prey item using its forelimbs.

Hello, not sure if there’s a rule against posting work in progress but I wanted to make sure the proportions were good here before moving on. This piece is intended to show off the larger forelimbs of Nanotyrannus and their potential use in predation.

Let me know if I’ve made any major anatomical mistakes, I know the teeth are missing. Accurate dentition, color, background, etc, will be added as the piece progresses. Driptosaurus (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Eoabelisaurus (TD)

Eoabelisaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm giving it a pass for now until someone else finds anatomical issuses. Aventadoros (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Works by Paleo lazo yt

• 
  Ligabueino
• 
• 
  Nanotyrannus lethaeus

Found in commons. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Pass to all three unless anyone has issues. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Someone on discord pointed that Ligabueino shouldn't have Masiakasaurus-like skull, but not sure for me. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Niche tyrannosaurus vs Nanotyrannus

Image

This image is used to showcase the ambush predation vs pursuit predation of the two predators. Bubblesorg (talk) 22:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Unsure whether to flag this as revisions or pass, but I will say one thing though, that ornithomimid is small! Is it a juvenile? ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

both the Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus here are missing an exoparia and have a jugal scale, which is most likely not the case. Also not sure about the quills on the Triceratops tail, it's not impossible but fairly unlikely considering what we have of trike integument. The plants in the background don't really seem to represent the Hell Creek paleoflora. I would recommend looking at the extinct pines and palms (ginkgos too, though they are rarer). Driptosaurus (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

@Driptosaurus The tyrannosaurus can easily be fixed but I'd say the Triceratops is a pass, even if we don't have fossilized evidence, there are many artworks showcasing quilled individuals. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, typo. Meant to say "tyrannosaurs". I was refering to both Nanotyrannus and Tyrannosaurus. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. Probably should have clarified that I thought the triceratops was usable. Driptosaurus (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

No the plants are accurate. Dawn redwoods and Sycamores were indeed found in Hell Creek. The Nano has an exoparia and both have a jugal scale. I can fix the Triceratops. Also, yes, it is a juvenile ornithomimid (hence the bigger eyes). --Bubblesorg (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

What I meant was more to do with the shape of the trees. Metasequoia is shown here to be growing very wide and not tapering very much, but that's not what we see in the genus. Most reconstructions give it sparser branches, as well. The Platanites looks okay to me. Driptosaurus (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Valdosaurus size diagram

Size diagram for Valdosaurus canaliculatus (see description for the sources it is based on). I don't expect this to be completely down pat as this is one of my first times scaling anything. Borophagus (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions It appears to have four digits despite having five. They also are too blunt. Other than that it looks fine. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Asiatosaurus

Asiatosaurus

Forgive me for making another dubious tooth taxon, but at least this one has a published basis: Poropat et al.’s 2022 review of Early Cretaceous sauropods, which includes Asiatosaurus as a euhelopodid in a chart. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Pass unless anyone else has issues. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 01:28, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Scelidosaurus

Scelidosaurus

Scelidosaurus scale chart

Used on many pages, including a GA, but has never undergone image review before. Leptictidium (mt) 16:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I added the scale chart as well, as it is based on the same image. I have a problem with the bipedal posture; unless I miss something, that's a very minority opinion and not something we would present as our life reconstruction of choice. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be the most recent take on the debate [1], which argues for a bipedal posture, so bipedal posture is fine. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Jens, I could be misinterpreting that source but it seems to mention quadrupedality as the prevailing hypothesis for Scelidosaurus while refraining from actually testing it since the study is focused on Scutellosaurus? -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

You are right of course – I completely missed that it is about Scutellosaurus and not Scelidosaurus. In my original comment, I had Norman's papers in mind; here he says that a bipedal posture is "unlikely", although in another one [2] he thinks it moved mostly quadrupedally but was able to move bipedally. As for the trackway evidence, the tracks have not, and cannot be assigned to Scelidosaurus so that should not really count as evidence. So if that is the case, it would be ideal if we could use a life reconstruction that shows the normal quadrupedal posture and use this one for the "Locomotion" section, to not give the false impression that this was a bipedal taxon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

The size comparison diagram should certainly show a more standardised pose. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

• It was reviewed back in 2017, remember to check file usage:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  Facepalm I actually did check file usage, but I must've missed it. My apologies. Although it seems to have shined a light on problems with the bipedal posture. Leptictidium (mt) 21:31, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Nothronychus mckinleyi skeletal

Skeletal reconstruction of Nothronychus mckinleyi, based on the holotype AzMNH-P2106.

Skeletal diagram of Nothronychus mckinleyi. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Pass: For me looks good, I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

In response to the question about making one for graffami: I might, but this is part of a planned series of Moreno Hill skeletals, and graffami, despite being more complete, is really poorly preserved and harder to restore. It's also probably not that different. Definitely NOT Dilophosaurus (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you make one for N. graffami as well?

Scelidosaurus

Scelidosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 09:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Minor revisions It is missing a hallux on its hindlimbs. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hallux added. TotalDino (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Huayracursor

Huayracursor

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm giving it a pass for now until someone else finds anatomical issuses. Aventadoros (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Pass I can't see any major issues. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Reconstruction of Boreonykus

Hello there! I've made a reconstruction of Boreonykus and figured I'd submit it for review. Let me know if I should make any adjustments!

Life Reconstruction of Boreonkyus

Benwrops (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I'll say pass until further notice. ~2025-31600-97 (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Australotitan reconstruction

Realized we don’t have a life reconstruction for this taxon so I made one. Based on Sauriazoicillus’ skeletal as seen on the page. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

That skeletal of mine needs some serious updates given the newer material, I'd also recommend looking at sauropod musculature references as I'm noticing some discrepancies in areas such as the connection between the limbs and the body. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)