This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Inostrancevia is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to
animals and
zoology. For more information, visit the
project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
While I think the image
Inostrancevia_4DB.jpg is powerful, I can't help but notice it's done in the style of the
shrink-wrapped dinosaur. Would someone be able to update this image to more accurately reflect how Inostrancevia might have looked?
Note that you can see the skull clearly, it has no lips, and you can almost count the ribs. I haven't seen any animal look like this unless it's starving.
I fixed the visible skull, but as for visible ribs, check out for example the
white rhinoceros. As for lips, it seems to have them, but whether they would completely cover the teeth or not we simply don't know, and there are various mammals today with partially exposed teeth, such as
naked mole rats or
Tasmanian devils.
FunkMonk (
talk)
14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
References problems
Although I'm quite satisfied that the article is reformed, unfortunately it has no external links with regard to certain sources, and I would like them to be corrected immediately. If my proposal is made, then I thank the author who made this modification.
Amirani1746 (
talk)
18:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Amirani1746:@
Eotyrannu5-Returns: : I find that there is little reconstruction concerning the animal, especially for a very well-known animal, afterwards you can delete it, but if ever the article becomes more and more developed, do not hesitate to use them.
17:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I have already discussed this off-site, but the question seems to be about whether the gallery which Amirani has been trying to re-add is a worthwhile contribution to the article. It seems that the rest of us have some issues with the three images in question, with the tooth image having little educational value, and the NT and DB life restorations having dubious anatomy, shrinkwrapping, etc. I do think that a gallery would be a worthwhile edition to the page, since it helps present images in a more organized manner when the text is short enough that it would look a bit cluttered otherwise. It's just that a good gallery would exclude the images in the current gallery. I've put a proposed re-organization and new gallery idea in my sandbox, would that be a good compromise that accounts for both of these arguments?
Fanboyphilosopher (
talk)
19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Regardless of their quality,
WP:galleries states images should preferably be incorporated into relevant sections, not as stand-alone galleries. In any case, the images can be fixed if they are inaccurate, but you need to stop reverting them when they are modified, otherwise we won't use them. I would argue it does have interest to show the isolated canines and their roots, but then it should be in a relevant section where they are discussed.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I agree with the guidelines of WP:galleries, though the article is currently is too short for all useful images to be incorporated into the text. I see galleries as kind of a temporary "band-aid" solution for short articles, since images are very useful educational tools and are much easier to incorporate than text expansions, which take a lot of time and effort. Regardless, there have been good arguments made against the anatomy of the Bogdanov and Tamura reconstructions (and I'm not just talking about exposed canines, I have no problem with that). Maybe we can re-open an image review, if anyone feels strongly about this topic.
Fanboyphilosopher (
talk)
22:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)reply
I've been updating some of their images recently (removing external ears, hiding incisors, smoothed out fenestrae, etc.), so I think it would be a good idea if more issues could be pointed out so they can be fixed. These images will be floating around forever regardless of whether we remove them from Eng Wiki articles, so better to make them as accurate as we can, as we're unlikely to get alternatives for all genera any time soon.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)reply