Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive January 2007

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:

WP:DINOART

Dinosaur Image Review 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 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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"[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).

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  • If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction.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 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"[7], so they can be easily located for correction.

Click here to submit a new image for review
  1. ^ Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3][4]

Paralititan, Fukuiraptor[edit]

Happy New Year! Starting with the massive Egyptian titanosaur and the Japanese Allosaurid. ArthurWeasley 06:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They look fine to me, though the tail on the Fukuiraptor looks kinda short compared to other allosauroids and this skeletal mount [8]. Dinoguy2 21:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know but the length of the tail from the pubis to the tip in the skeletal mount is about 2.5 times the length of the skull and kind of shorter than the body size. The proportions in the drawing look about the same to me. ArthurWeasley 04:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem here may be the slanted perspective of the photo making the tail look a bit smaller than it is. I think this is why in the drawing, the tail appears to get too gracle too fast. The photo has a longer and more curvaceous 'look' to it, which doesn't quite come across without some extra depth, which would have looked odd without extra length as well. I'd reccomend making the base of the tail a bit deeper and lengthening (just a little bit, to compensate) which should end up looking fine. Dinoguy2 15:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done! ArthurWeasley 20:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Paralititan looks really nice, Arthur. Wow, that is one really thick neck! (But that's what the musculature diagram shows, so...) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the neck thicker on purpose to give room for all the muscles. It is still quite slim compared to John Conway's reconstitution of Giraffatitan here [9]... ArthurWeasley 20:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great!Dinoguy2 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcosuchus and Eurhinosaurus[edit]

No dino this time. Sarco mainly based on this and Eurhino based on this and that. ArthurWeasley 07:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both look great, Arthur. I forgot about Eurhinosaurus... kind of a sawfish mimmic! Dinoguy2 01:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archosauromorpha series[edit]

Continuing the Archosauromorpha series... Champsosaurus based on [10]. Protorosaurus based on [11] and [12]. Trilophosaurus based on [13] and [14]. Incidentally, there is no article on any of the Trilophosauridae on wikipedia. Could someone write a stub? Two of the images have been colorized (my new experiment!). I also have the BW version if you prefer. ArthurWeasley 01:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ey i like your Tanystropheus quite a lot.-LadyofHats 03:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :D ArthurWeasley 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the coloring looks quiten nice - are you doing it on the computer? My one suggestion would be to increase the contrast difference between the dinosaur and its background (see the feet of the Tanystropheus). Debivort 04:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just using a pencil, a scanner, a printer and a few crayola markers for the coloring. Unfortunately, can't increase the contrast without redoing the coloring from scratch. Also don't have much colors at my disposal. I am not too much of a computer guy but will probably end up trying Photoshop one day (is that the software you guys are using?) ArthurWeasley 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool stuff! I was waiting for someone to do a trilophosaur, they're a great example of the 'ancestral archosaur' form. Nothing screams inaccurate on these, and they look like the skeletals, but I'm not really an expert on the anatomy of these guys :) The color versions are very well done. Dinoguy2 06:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love the Tanystropheus - the others I'm not too familiar with though they look niceCas Liber 10:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more[edit]

A phytosaur, Rutiodon mainly based on the skeletal at [15]. Lotosaurus will be next. Good night for now. ArthurWeasley 08:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! At this rate we'll have at least one image for each major sauropsid clade in no time :) Dinoguy2 18:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! The shading is also really nice, as it's easily seen even in the thumbnail version, a good thing to consider when these go on the page, as not everyone will click on the full-size image. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree -really nice drawing Cas Liber 10:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lotosaurus[edit]

Not a dino but pretty cool. Skeletal here and here. ArthurWeasley 06:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a lovely image, but the black spots seem too dark, somewhat artificial-looking (because they are so much darker than anything else in the image). I know you were going with the idea that the sail was used as a display, or as a distraction to predators who would be drawn to the spots rather than the head, ala the Dimetrodon in Walking with Prehistoric Beasts; at the same time, the spots just seem too dark; I'm not a predator, and even I'm distracted by the spots! ;) Sorry for nitpicking. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irritator[edit]

i am really proud of this one :) -LadyofHats 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from this one i will make only the[head] becouse i dont find anything else from the skeleton. does anyone has an idea how broad was it. i mean like a cocodril or more thin like a caiman?-LadyofHats 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is only known from the skull. Here are some other reconstructions. You can see here a front view of Spinosaurus, another spinosaurid dinosaur. This site indicates they could even be the same genus. Hope this helps. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The front view of the JP3 spinosaur is far too broad--the dal Sasso skull is very narrow, more like a gharial than a crocodile. Here [16] is a front view of a Suchomimus skull, which was similar in shape. Dinoguy2 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now this one was so much fun :). here i hope you have no corrections.-LadyofHats 03:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC) oh yeah ignore the image on the bottom, that one will be a second side view of the head. i just pasted the bones for a while to compare propotions :P. so do you have any corrections?-LadyofHats 13:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC) me waves with the hands, whistles and jumps... EY guys i am here-LadyofHats 17:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks to AW for moving this down :) Looks excellent LoH, love that perspective. Dinoguy2 20:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AW.-LadyofHats 23:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wow! Really looks neat! :) Great job! Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! Really nice, this is truly one of your best, Lady! ArthurWeasley 01:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Riojasaurus and Qantassaurus[edit]

  • Riojasaurus v.3
    Riojasaurus v.3
  • size comparison version 2
    size comparison version 2
  • Qantassaurus v.1
    Qantassaurus v.1

I'm back from vacation - here are two for your comments. Debivort 04:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The style and technique are very good, but the first thing that jumps out at me is the severe bend at the base of the neck on the Riojasaurus. Arguments about sauropodomorph neck posture aside, such a drastic bend would have been impossible without completely disarticulating those few vertebrae (see a skelton here to see what I mean [17]). Dinoguy2 04:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah ... I thought that might be an issue. Part of why I drew it that way was the lines in the article: "was unable to rear up on its back legs" and "fed on the foliage of tall conifers." How can these both be true without a neck that can bend sharply? I figured as a prosauropod it must be an exception to the neck rule. new version coming soon. Debivort 04:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK new version of riojasaurus. Debivort 05:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The body looks great, in my opinion! The head/neck area seems somehow "off" to me. I didn't see your original image (missed it), so I don't know if the original problem was reduced, but it seems to me on your image, the head and spine connect at a rather sharp angle. The spine should connect to the skull at almost no angle. On your image, there is a very obvious angle. The head should be able to bend, but the angle this fellow's head is in worries me from a skeletal point of view. probably outdated skeletal image, but shows the head/neck position I'm used to seeing. Dinoguy may disagree with me, so please do not rework until confirmation from him. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ironic how the life restoration below that image flatly contradicts the skeletal... :( But yes, the new neck posture is worlds better than the old one, though the head angle is off as FofR points out. The 'fact' that it fed off conifers should be removed... sounds like a guess made by whoever wrote the article, rather than something based on evidence. Even if remnants of confers were somehow found in association wiht the stomach or in coprilites, the body posture should immediately rule out the idea that they were 'tall'. Dinoguy2 19:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't get that link (403 error) - but here's a new version. Debivort 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! Thanks for your patience. Sorry the link didn't work; it was working fine the other day... Firsfron of Ronchester 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! How about the Qant? Debivort 01:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems just fine to me. At least, I've found nothing to object to, since I haven't found a skeletal reconstruction. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both look fine to me. I'm not really up on ornithopods, but the Qant looks pretty good compared to reconstructions of hypsilophodonts. Dinoguy2 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like v3 Riojasaurus better than v2 (the neck thing..). I thought Qantassaurus was only known from minimal remains - looks nice though I wonder if it weren't a little slimmer? Cas Liber 10:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been slimmer, but the Museum Victoria image shows a fellow that was even chubbier. Several sources indicate Qantassaurus is known only from a dentary, but DinRuss claims it's known from a nearly complete skeleton. This deserves looking into. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dinoruss is the only site that lists Qanta as known from a nearly complete skeleton. This seems to be a mistake. Sites such as [18] and [19] (shows the actual holotype) as well as the old dinosauricon and dinodata says it is known from a dentary and teeth. Does somebody have the following ref: Rich, T.H. & P.Vickers-Rich 1999 The Hypsilophodontidae from Southeastern Australia In Y.Tomada, T.H.Rich and P.Vickers-Rich (Eds) Proceedings of the Second Gondwana Dinosaur Symposium. National Science Museum Monographs, No.15. Tokyo. pp.167-180 ?ArthurWeasley 21:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Size comparison for Riojasaurus. Let me know what to do with Qantassaurus whenever you can. Debivort 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Rioja scale diagram looks about twice as big as it should... At least compared to the size diagram in the link Firs posted (it doesn't work when you first click on it, open it up and then hit enter in the url bar again and it should come up. weird). Anyway, it looks like Rioja is about 2 or 2.5 m tall at the hip. Yours might end up looking a bit 'short' due to the perspective of the drawing (i.e., it won's measure 35ft on the diagram if you actually measure it out), but it should still give a good idea of the size. Dinoguy2 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a new version of the comparison chart. Debivort 08:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The size comparison looks good to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lagosuchus[edit]

Folks, my first attempt to colorize an image with a software instead of using pencils and markers starts with Lagosuchus. I am still in the learning process but am quite happy with this first try :). Also fade out the spots on the Lotosaurus that Firs found so distracting, using ancient technology (i.e. an eraser) ;). ArthurWeasley 07:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like you've got the hang of the coloring! The eye is wonderful. I'll leave anatomical comments to the pros... Debivort 09:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lagosuchus looks good, based on the skeletals I have (I'm guessing based primarily on Marasuchus and Lewisuchus). Excellent work on the digital coloring, too. The new Lotosaurus looks great. What a weird looking critter! Dinoguy2 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Lagosuchus appears to closely resemble the skeletal here, with the exception of the neck, which is shown much thicker. However, according to Palaeos.com, the lagosuchids did have long s-shaped necks, and the lagosuchid section of the site depicts members of the clade with much thinner necks than the above link. So, no objection from me! :) Also, thanks for fading out the spots on Lotosaurus. They just looked too dark in my opinion. Thanks for the great images. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John Conway's rendering of Lagosuchus gives an even thinner neck: [20]. As Dinoguy pointed out all the available reconstructions are probably based on Lagosuchus lillioensis which is now known as Marasuchus. I wonder if the image should move to the Marasuchus article instead. ArthurWeasley 22:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could even go in both--the original Lagosuchus material is so poor it's not diagnostic, and treated by most as a nomen dubium, which is why Marasuchus was created for the better specimens. Dinoguy2 02:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wuerhosaurus and Lufengosaurus[edit]

Thoughts? Debivort 04:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really like the Wuerhosaurus, that's a cool pose. The prosauropod's hands look off though--a little too theropodan and... hand-like. Prosauropods were primarily quadrupedal, and the fingers were short, overall a bit more 'paw'-like. Or at least not 'curled up', which makes it look like it was capable of grasping, which I'm not sure it could do, based on the skeletal stuff I can find.[21] Dinoguy2 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wuerhosaurus image is colored/shaded very nicely. It shows up very well even in the thumbnail version. I'm a bit worried about the Wuerhosaurus eye. If you look here under "tribe Stegosaurini", you will see the skull of the closely related Stegosaurus. On your image, the eye very nearly lines up with the back of the mandible (lower jaw). Most dinosaurs had four "holes" which went completely through their skull: the naris, the antorbital fenestra (not present in Stegosaurini), the orbit (eye socket), and the infratemporal fenestra, which was behind the orbit. It looks as though the eye of this fellow is close to (or in) the infratemporal fenestra. Would it be possible to move the eye just slightly down and slightly to the left? Sorry for the nitpickery. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pawier hands on Lufeng, and downleftier eye on Wuerho. Debivort 04:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for downlefting the eye. Looks great, in my opinion! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herrerasaurus[edit]

Herrerasaurus based on skeletal by Sereno, see [22], details of the skull at [23] and of the hands and feet at [24]. ArthurWeasley 07:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very good, but the back leg seems a little wonky. Both feet are contacting the ground at the same point and in the same pose, but the back knee is not visible, making the back tibia look longer than the front one. Neither foot really looks firmly planted on the ground, either -- they both look like the hind leg in Sereno's skeletal, which is pushing off the ground in a running pose. If both feet are like that he's likely to be toppling forward ;) Theropods, and I assume herrerasuarians as well, whatever they are, had a thicker pad of flesh behind the functional toes that would have become more prominant as weight was put on it, sort of like a pseudo human 'heel', and the full length of the digits would be splayed out on the ground under the animals weight (except the vestigial digits of course, which originated higher up the metatarsals). See this drawing of a T. rex standing on one foor to see what I mean :) [25] Dinoguy2 16:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! Exactly what I thought! Here is a slightly modified version. I can work on it some more to have the back hind leg more firmly on the ground. ArthurWeasley 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better to me! :) I don't think it's important that the feet are planted completely, squarely on the ground in this case. The pose suggests it may be lunging at small prey or something, so as long as it looks like it's moving forward rather than falling forward, I think it's ok. Dinoguy2 20:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really like this new version a lot. It's much nicer than the old image we had. Thank you. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rugops and two pelycosaurs[edit]

Shifting towards the abelisaurs (somehow, among the theropods, I like those). Inspiration here. Ophiacodon based on this. Sphenacodon from here (reconstruction seems somewhat outdated)ArthurWeasley 08:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rugops looks cool (especially the carnotaur-like scutes and osteoderms), but the snout looks too long and narrow compared to the link you provided as well as Todd Marshall's graphite studies of the skull. It looks like th tip of the snout and the nostril should be just forward of where the anterior edge of the AOF is now. The most distinctive thing about abelisaurids is their rounded, bulldog-like skulls. Dinoguy2 21:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, snout was a little long. I've shorten and thicken it a bit and displaced the nostril accordingly. Note that in the link above, the snout in the actual skull on the right seems slightly longer than the reconstruction on the left, although the perspective looks the same. ArthurWeasley 22:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm guessing some of the skull is reconstructed, since this looks more like the restoration than the skull in that image [26] Also, and this is very nitpicky, but check out the nostril on the life sculpture--it's positioned as low as possible given the shape of the naris, based on Whitmer's studies, and this applies to all amniotes apparently. Dinoguy2 23:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, moved the nostril down to the base of the naris. ArthurWeasley 23:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dimetrodon[edit]

Everyone's favorite pelycosaur... (or at least the most popular) ArthurWeasley 07:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, neat! I cannot comment as to its accuracy, but it's a very cool image! Dimetrodon is only everyone's favorite pelycosaur because most people would be hard pressed to name a different one. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's right, that's why I added "the most popular" ;) ! Not sure what I am going to do next... ArthurWeasley 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks accurate to me! Very nice work Dinoguy2 15:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not fully agree. Isn't the skull a little bit too small and - more important - aren't the teeth too "homodont"? de:Benutzer:TomCatX --83.129.9.186 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The head looks about right compared to this photo [27], at least. Arthur didn't specify which species he was depicting, but the one in that AMNH mount is rather small-skulled compared to the more well-known, big-headed D. grandis. I think the teeth are too small to really nitpick... the different morphologies of Dimetrodon teeth would be too indistinct at this scale, wouldn't they? They're all ong pointy things, just slightly different long pointy things when you look at them in cross section, etc. Dinoguy2 00:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the problem with the teeth isn't easy to handle. But even in the highest magnification of that picture you can see that all the teeth have the same size and one of the most important apomorphies of the synapsids was their heterodonty. So I think it would be better to show that animal with a closed mouth to avoid misunderstandigs. What do you think? de:Benutzer:TomCatX --83.129.9.186 15:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the species which served as a model in the drawing is D. limbatus. There is a skeletal here for instance. I believe the skull is about the right size, even if you consider a different species, such as D. grandis. If you check the skeletal (see here), you can notice that the proportion of the skull with respect to the body size is about the same, although the general appearance of the animal might be a little bit more stockier. As for the teeth, they were made heterodont but as Dinoguy2 pointed out, it's hard to notice at this scale (even with the zoom) mostly because it is a low resolution image. I slightly modified the image to make some of the teeth look bigger but once all is reduced to a convenient format, the difference almost faded away (have to look hard but there is a difference!). ArthurWeasley 04:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I hadn't even considered the teeth. One more reason I'm glad there are several people watching this page. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plateosaurus, Coelurus paints - Triceratops, Euoplocephalus, Eoraptor, Heterodontosaurus and Brachiosaurus scale diagrams - Pangaea physical map[edit]

Hi I'm Dropzink of Spanish Wikipedia. I have an account in Commons and I create images these days for add them here in English Wikipedia.

I don't have a big problem with the 'cartoony' look, but the Ceolurus at least has a few problems anatomically. While it's not known from very good remains, it was very closely related to (if not congeneric with) Tanycolagreus, which has longer fingers and an almost allosaur-like skull. There are some good photos here - [28] Dinoguy2 23:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you're right Dinoguy, I change it tomorrow. Dropzink
The map has a copright symbol on it, but is licensed under creative commons. Are those two aspects compatible? Debivort 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because if you see in my dinosaur website, the page is called Dinosauria X, I'm the author and creator of the website and the image that I license under creative commons. But I believe that I have to put another license here. Dropzink
I would prefer not to use cartoon-style renderings on Wikipedia articles. These are supposed to illustrate encyclopedia articles. The Plateosaurus image might be suitable on Enchanted Learning, but I'd like to use more realistic images whenever possible. Additionally, the other images are technically in the wrong format. They are .jpegs, which become heavily pixelated each time they are saved. In general, images created for Wikipedia should be in .SVG or .PNG format. This preserves the images as crisp as when they were created. Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload shows why: jpg images start looking grainy after a while. Your images of Eoraptor and Heterodontosaurus are very grainy, at least around the human in the figure. Would it be possible to clean these images up and convert them to PNG format? Sorry for the trouble. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I fix them, thanks for the advice. Dropzink
But If I change the format of images that show size comparison I can add it to articles?About the cartoon-style, this pictures will be deleted even I change it something? Dropzink
There are ways to aboid them looking so cartoon like. remove the background, make colors less shiny. and try to add a bit of volume with some shadows ( both on the animal and the surrounding, oh and also remove the smile by pointing the end of the mouth down, a bit like [this.] -LadyofHats 10:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Dropzink
The image is too much better now.
But how I change other images (of Adobe Photoshop) to .SVG format? Dropzink
To change an image that has been "rasterized" - i.e. saved in a .jpg, or .png format into a .svg format generally requires redoing the image, unfortunately. Debivort 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another (minor) anotomical gripe... the Plateosaurus is a bit too obviously based on the model from WWD, which had something weird foing on with the skull. The neck was also a bit too short. I can't find a good pic of the skeleton, but this painting is more accurate-[29]. I think the WWD plateosaur skull is too rounded up top--coupled with an unusally high and small eye, it almost looks like an azhdarchid pterosaur :) Dinoguy2 21:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I understand the problem is in the neck and the skull. I have to work too much in this but no problem I have a lot of time ;) Thanks for the advices, tomorrow I have ready the new versions of every picture. Dropzink
Ready the new design of Plateosaurus and Coelurus, on Plateosaurus I enlarged its neck and change the form of skull, based on the previous paint[30] and on Coelurus I enlarged its skull and hands. Note: The pictures are unedited with shadows,etc because I have to be secure if this new plateosaurus and coelurus have the correct form. Dropzink
  • Plateosaurus (v.2)
    Plateosaurus (v.2)
  • Coelurus (v.2)
    Coelurus (v.2)
Much better, anatomically at least. Dinoguy2 17:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Now I'll start the new (edited) versions of this dinosaurs. About the size comparison pictures I continue don't knowing exactly how to change them with a .svg format, for this I think that need a program, software, etc. that I don´t have. But like the Riojasaurus size comparison have a .png format, my pictures of size comparison also can have it? Dropzink (sorry if I have an error in the comment, I don't know totally english:b)
Your English is understandable, Dropzink. .png format works just fine; we just try to stay away from .jpg format in non-photo graphics because it pixelates so badly. So if you make your images in .png, that will be great. Muchas gracias por su trabajo. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SVG is a vector format (based on pints , lines and areas). while PNG and JPG is a pixel based format (diminute cubes of color one at the side of the other). to pass from a vector format to a pixel based is quite easy. to go the other way arround is almust imposible. yet as far as you told me, you are working on flash. right? flash files are a "hybrid" from vector and pixel images. and even when flash itself has no way to save things as svg. it does work with some vector working programs. like ilustrator. what you need to do is to get one of this vector programs (there are some spanish freeware like [inkscape]) then you open your flash and select whatever is inside it.

press cntrl+C (copy) and the open a new document on the vector program, there you press Cntrl+V (paste). in must cases this would allow you to move your work to the other program. with some little disadvantages. ( tons and tons of unecesary points wich multiply the size of the file. and sometimes deformed figures) in the worst case you will have to draw the whole thing new on the vector program. -LadyofHats 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is too easy, I only need Adobe Illustrator that I can install, copy the picture from flash to illustrator, save it with the .svg format and upload to Wikipedia. But I don't want to do all my images with a .svg format, only the images that show size comparison between dinosaurs and humans. But even is not neccesary, I think that the format .png is enough, or not? what you recommend me? Better I don't waste my time in this, .png is a correct format like .svg, I'll use .png because now is my faster option and also I have more pictures of flash that I need complete for soon upload to Wikipedia;). Dropzink

There is the gallery of my images of size comparison between dinosaurs and humans now with the format .png, and also I added a new, the Brachiosaurus! Dropzink

  • New!
    New!
    • There are at least 2 main overhelming advantages of vector graphics above png. the first one is the size of the file. (between 4 and 10 times bigger) and the next one is the ability to scale. look at this [example]. vector graphics can (in theory) be scaled up to infinitum without loosing data information. since the information it contains is more like points, distances, angles and so on. png, as all other pixel based sistem in the other hand is based in fixed sized cubes of a specific color. the more and smaller cubes you have (higher resolution) the more you can scale. but also the heavier the file becomes. In resume: you can use png without problems, but i am afraid sooner or later they will land on the "files that need to be svg" list on commons.  :)-LadyofHats 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, the svg format is very very good, not pixelated and grany, but what are the files that really need to be svg? About the pictures of Plateosaurus and Coelurus, there are the new and complete versions that I already added to articles. Dropzink

Vector images[edit]

Started work on vectorising some of the size comparison images:

My impression is that the black ones are in main use, is that so? /Marmelad 12:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/Archive_January_2007&oldid=1115970003"