Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

PalaeoDinoTask listArticle workshopPaleoart reviewDinoart 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 It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.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

Tyrannosaurus rex - TMP 1981.006.0001 ("Black Beauty")

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Very nice, pass. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

It looks good, but should a restoration of Tyrannosaurus rex be based on TMP 1981.006.0001 ("Black Beauty"), given that Gregory Paul and colleagues consider it to be a different species (Tyrannosaurus regina)? Conty~enwiki 06:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone else really follows that idea. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please review, Protohadros by the beach

Two Protohadros near a beach

Please review Bubblesorg (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I cannot comment about accuracy but imo style is bit too rough. I know it is just marking but it looks like having uncanny large eye... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

The very highly placed eyes with arched tops projecting above the rest of the skull don't seem reflected on the known material. Beyond this I think this is poorly suited for Wikipedia - the depiction of the integument around the nose and eye looks incredibly unnatural, the large scale or osteoderm on its jaw is a very speculative choice, the background makes it read poorly at thumb size, and the composition with a head on one side and tail on the utter is unintuitive and likely confusing if the viewer isn't already familiar with hadrosaur anatomy. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 03:29, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

the skull is pretty traced from this specimen (http://www.paleofile.com/Dinosaurs/Ornithopods/Protohadros.asp). But yeah, the rest of the critique makes sense.--Bubblesorg (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

• Kind of odd composition for our purposes, only showing the end of a tail and a head. FunkMonk (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Nagatitan by Pxkorn

A new reconstruction of the Nagatitan has been added to the article without review. Any comments?

• 

Aventadoros (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Coloration looks too similar to press art, which may cause copyright issue or something? Imo most of paleoart of this taxon is based on color of press art... Also pinging author @Pxkorn: here. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Looks practically identical to TotalDino's and has violent color changes and odd musculature. ThePaleorganizer (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Phuwiangvenator yaemniyomi

• 

Added to article by @Penandsuffer: without review. Just curious but is that user another account of the one who did Nagatitan above? Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

This appears to have been a coincidence, they are different artists. (that author's Nagatitan art:[1]) Either way both needs review... Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

please review for accuracy Penandsuffer (talk) 11:57, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I merged this with a post I made before you did. I don't have enough knowledge about dinosaur anatomy, but at the very least, the amount of feathers seems a bit excessive for megaraptoran. Also, the hand pronation might be an issue, although I don't know the range of motion of it. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Apparently, megaraptorans could pronate. But yes, the feathers don't look like the kind of protofeathers one would expect from a non-maniraptoran. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Kank

• 
  Kank

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Comments: what's going on with the brownish feather texture on the humerus? I'd also suggest spending more time on the pedal unguals - none of them look like natural parts of the digits. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Brachytrachelopan mesai

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Pass, contains the characteristics expected of the taxon.The Morrison Man (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Jian changmaensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Pass for me; very pretty coloration. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:14, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Scutellosaurus

• 
  Scutellosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 08:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Camptosaurus

• 
  Camptosaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Hypothetical Adelolophus skull reconstruction

• 
  Hypothetical Adelolophus skull reconstruction

Skull reconstruction of Adelolophus based on various parasaurolophin taxa. Obviously very little is known. So I made the crest fade out to reflect the unknown nature. The one thing that I noticed that suggests the shape of the skull is that the snout seems more upturned, unlike Parasaurolophus and more like Tlatolophus. Please review. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Matches known relatives and current material, Pass. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 00:59, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Aquilops

• 
  Aquilops

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Spicomellus

• 
  Spicomellus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Jian

• 
  Jian

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Zephyrosaurus Sketch WIP

Zephyrosaurus sketch WIP

Hello there! I'm a fairly new editor, so please forgive me if I make any mistakes.

I thought it might be fun to help flesh out the roster of dino illustrations. I was wondering if I could get some feedback on this piece. (It's WAY easier for me to make changes to line-art/anatomy at the early sketch stage than to make changes to a completed image. I hope that's alright.)

Questions/notes:

The current recreations are contradictory. I looked to their relatives for a bit of insight, but a lot of their recreations were also all over the place.

Teeth? No teeth? The article just says "beak teeth," but I know some dinos had teeth behind that.

I have no idea what the "raised knob" on the upper jaw and cheekbone are supposed to look like (or where exactly they're located on those parts.) I could not access the reference, nor could I find any other images or recreations with these features. Any insight would be extremely helpful there!

Feathers? Some illustrations show feathers, others don't, some relatives have feathers, others aren't depicted with them.

Anywho, I'm happy to make any suggested changes before prettying it up if y'all think this can be salvaged. If it's not up to the Wikipedia standard, no hard feelings. Thank you for your consideration! Have a wonderful day! Klaora (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Zephyrosaurus is poorly known, so I guess it has to be reconstructed after a closely related taxon, such as Orodromeus. What's the reference you could not access? I might be able to help with that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much for responding, Jens (and thanks for your patience for my reply.) I could certainly try making it closer to Orodromeus. It was one of several reference points I used along with Hypsilophodon, as the article for Zephyrosaurus mentioned that there were similarities. Now that I'm paying closer attention to the relationship between species, they are not as closely related as I thought. (I'll see if I can figure out how to add the cladogram to the article on Zephyrosaurus to prevent further confusion on the subject. )

And here's the reference I had trouble accessing:

Sues, Hans-Dieter (1980). "Anatomy and relationships of a new hypsilophodontid dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous of North America". Palaeontographica Abteilung A. 169 (1–3): 51–72  

Though truth be told, most references on the Zephyrosaurus page are difficult to access.

(Unrelated, but this drawing came from hubris. "There's already a reconstruction photo and an illustration of one getting eaten, so I can just use that as a direct reference!" The more I looked into it, the more confusing it got until I simply decided to ask for help lol. If illustrating this dino is a dead-end, it's all good. Thanks for your patience!)--Klaora (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have that paper either, but would be quite interested in it myself. @IJReid:, perhaps you have it? Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I do have the paper, and have shared it now with Jens (easier for me to share it through non-wiki means), but for the sake of illustration the drawings by Tracy Ford [2] accurately represent the depiction within the study of the skull, though the jugal boss is not shown and isn't figured in non-lateral view anywhere anyways so its a bit of a guess as to its extent off the main bone. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:19, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks so much @IJReid:. That is incredibly helpful!

I'll re-work the head with these proportions and draw the body to be more like Orodromeus for now.

Thank you both for being so kind. I've wanted to get into Paleoart for years, but I found the process daunting. Regardless of the final result, I'm thankful for this opportunity to learn. Klaora (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks IJReid! @Klaora: I just forwarded the paper to your wiki mail, let me know if you didn't get it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Changzhousaurus size

• 
  Changzhousaurus size

Silhouette of the tiny new paravian with a hand for scale. May need a few touch-ups if/when the full-res figures are made available. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Changzhousaurus sinensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 02:33, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Minor comment: The bony part of the tail seems a little too long (compare with SlvrHwk’s size chart above) ~2026-35521-88 (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

It is not. Ddinodan (talk) 06:36, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The tail looks deceptively long due to the length of the tail feathers. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:21, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

great work. Especially love the feathers being darkest at their tips. Pass. Driptosaurus (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Supersaurus

• 
  Supersaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Changzhousaurus

• 
  Changzhousaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 05:32, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Uragasaurus

• 
  Uragasaurus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Plesiolophus skull reconstruction

• 

Plesiolophus skull reconstruction. Unknown crest faded out too reflect its uncertain anatomy. SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass: The preserved fossils match the silhouette, and its appearance itself is consistent with Plesiolophus’s classification within the Parasaurolophini.

Aventadoros

Mesetasaurus protector

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros

Uragasaurus kalasinensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros

Plesiolophus warnerensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 16:47, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros

Pass: Looks good. Consistent with the known material. SuspiciousHadrosaur

Parasaurolophus growth series

Growth series mostly of P. cyrtocristatus, but also filled in with juvenile Parasaurolophuss sp. for a more complete chart.

• 

SuspiciousHadrosaur (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

I approve of its use. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Ceratocaudia antiqua

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass: Its general anatomy is characteristic of sauropods belonging to the Macronaria group. Aventadoros

Bajadasaurus pronuspinax

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues Aventadoros

Ceratocaudia

• 
  Ceratocaudia

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 05:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Various Dinosaurs

Please review for accuracy.

• 
  Vectiraptor
• 
  Sphaerotholus
• 
  Albertonykus
• 
  Marshosaurus
• 
  Borealopelta
• 
  Micropachycephalosaurus

TotalDino (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Which species of Sphaerotholus is being depicted? They each have distinct ornamentation, so I can't judge accuracy just from the genus. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

• The Marshosaurus seems like an improvement over our existing one, which looks like it's tripping over. The Vectiraptor seems generic enough for its purpose, but am I seeing things, or is the hindmost sickle claw larger than the one in the front? FunkMonk (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Borealopelta markmitchelli

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass: I don't see any major issues. Aventadoros

Pass: I would probably reconstruct the cheek slightly differently based on other nodosaurs. But It's not a big issue. Everything else looks good. Pass. SuspiciousHadrosaur

Parasaurolophus walkeri

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass, but use with caution. No major issues with the artwork, but that shouldn’t be a free pass to wholesale replace others’ artworks. ~2026-41395-52 (talk) 01:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I won't comment on whether or not this is a pass as I am not a regular Wikipedia contributor, but I am unsure if an anonymous account should decide what gets passed or rejected. If you have a verified account, I suggest logging into it --Mjmannella (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I used to have one, but I don’t use it anymore because Wikipedia forces me to verify my login with an email I barely use. ~2026-41224-80 (talk) 02:53, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Pass: Good reconstruction. SuspiciousHadrosaur

Pawpawsaurus campbelli reconstruction

Reconstruction of Pawpawsaurus campbelli

Im new and I’d like to ask for someone to review it for accuracy! Void Lampshade (talk) 09:49, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

Plesiolophus

• 
  Plesiolophus

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 06:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Musango

• 
  Musango

Please review for accuracy. TotalDino (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Musango matusadonaensis

• 

Ddinodan (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2026 (UTC)