Got a PhD studying extant and fossil birds. Alternatively, North American alvarezsaurid described in 2009.
Since you previously defended Dakotaraptor's validity in a previous Tumblr ask, what do you think of the recent study suggesting it's no longer a valid species?
"Defended" is a strong word. What I recall saying was that the validity of Dakotaraptor had not been questioned in the scientific literature at the time. That was a statement of fact, not an expression of my own opinion on the subject. As far as I know, that statement is still true. What recent study are you referring to? There's been a resurgence in online discussion about Dakotaraptor because its lead describer has been in the news lately; however, the news is primarily about evidence of his misconduct on a different study, not the Dakotaraptor description. And though many Mesozoic theropod researchers have raised concerns on social media and other informal settings about the diagnosability of Dakotaraptor and the quality of its description, suspicions that may well hold weight, there hasn't been a new paper on the subject as far as I'm aware.
I was referring to this tweet that became viral on the dinosaur subreddit.
Other than the turtle elements (which were the subject of a previous paper), all of that is based on commentary in informal contexts. Much of it comes from researchers with relevant expertise, and so is worth taking into consideration, but there is no new study demonstrating that it's the case.
I don't have immediate plans to include silesaurids, but I probably will if their dinosaurian status becomes more widely accepted.