Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/hadrosaurid family tree

Hadrosaurid family tree[edit]

The Hadrosaurids comprise the dinosaurs commonly known as "duck-billed" dinosaurs. They were common herbivores during the Cretaceous period, and prey to therapods such as Tyrannosaurus. Spectacular fossils of hadrosaurs have been found, including mummified specimens in which soft tissue was preserved, skin impressions, tracks of footprints, and nest sites that demonstrate the animals had parental care of offspring. Animals are shown to scale.

Reason: A crisp diagram showing the evolutionary relationships between the tribes of the Hadrosauroidea, with representative individuals shown to scale. Conveys the diversity of the group, and aesthetically appealing, imho. Self-nom. Oh, and every dinosaur shown has passed review for scientific acuracy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review.
Articles this image appears in: Hadrosaurid
Creator: user:Debivort

Support as nominator — Debivort 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Are all those dinosaurs drawn by you? Wow they look really good... --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! yeah, they were my side project for the last couple months. Debivort 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent image with high encyclopedic value. Very well done! Cacophony 04:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Pretty dinosaurs...oooooooo. =) Very encyclopedic diagram. And good job with the dinos...they look so cute (when they're not biting your head off)! Jumping cheese 06:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bonus too, cause I recall an episode of Star Trek Voyager where this dinosaur family evolved into a bipedal space faring species. Maybe you should add that one in, or maybe not. --Cody.Pope 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Super-enc, super-pretty. Bravo! Bravissimo! --TotoBaggins 13:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nice one, Debivort. We need more illustrations like this! Anyone feel like making an image map? :) —Pengo 16:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: exactly the kind of illustration every encyclopedia should have! — Kpalion^(talk) 18:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Encyclopedic, and illustrative. Thought there was a spelling error, but I just don't know my dinosaur vocabulary ;) --Puddyglum 17:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support and comment: I infer from the scale bar at the lower right that all of the dinos are drawn to scale, but perhaps the scale bar could be captioned to specifically say this. Spikebrennan 18:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support if the caption is changed to give a time-scale rather than a copy-paste from an article. Right now the caption is of little value. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 18:20Z
- What do you mean by time-scale? Also, I take a bit of umbrage at the totally unfounded assumption that this was ripped from an article - since I wrote it from scratch in prepping the nom. Debivort 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for clarifying; the caption sounds more like the beginning of an article than a discussion of what's in the picture. That's what I meant by it being of little value. By time-scale, I mean some explanation of the time between when the various species diverged; something like "species X came about Y million years ago, species Z came about..." etc. The image shows wavy lines branching from eachother, but no indication of the time represented by those lines. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-28 20:16Z
    - I believe those divergence times are unknown. Debivort 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - We can at least give time ranges for when these species appeared/disappeared (based on known examples). An approximation is all that I'm looking for. Did it take 50 years, 5 million, or 50 million? — BRIAN0918 • 2007-06-29 04:01Z
        First of all, there are no species shown here. The individual drawings are genera, and the branches of the tree go down to tribe. The problem is all these groups were alive in the late Cretaceous, and are generally known only from a single fossil site - so they probably all diverged within 80my (the length of the Cretaceous) but even that is a guess. Given that, feel free to modify the caption as you see fit. Debivort 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wow! Nice work. --Mad Max 02:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support Extremely encyclopedic, great illustration...just all-around fantastic work! —BrOnXbOmBr21 • talk • contribs • 13:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added an image map, but reverted it since the image was showing up twice. Does anyone know how to handle that? --TotoBaggins 16:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for making the clickable map! You can't replace the large image. So I've just made the second image smaller (and made it a template to make it easier to insert elsewhere). Also added to the Hadrosaurid article. Also added some select text from this discussion to the description.

Support Nice work! Good to get some better anti aliasing on the text tho --Fir0002 02:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Hadrosaur-tree-v4.jpg MER-C 08:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]