Fuzzy primitive ornithischians don't necessarly clash with the evidence of scales in more derived members of the clade, apparently, known dinosaur scales resemble bird scales, which are not homologous with crocodile and lizard scales in neither morphology or development, it's entirely possible that bird "scales" (and dinosaur scales) are actually feather derivatives.
Oh and that was quick, fixing the ankylosaurus! Looks great now ... I wish there was more available about the reconstruction of ankylosaurs and figuring out just where and how all the plates and spikes and bumps all fit in together.
Also ... I did find it jarring to read about *some* classification systems including birds as theropods ... it somehow seemed to remind me of the fringe group that denies birds being dinosaurs. But ... to my mind we shouldn't throw overboard classification systems in which birds constitute an entire class. We can classify things according to different criteria, not only phylogenetic relationships, and one goal I see of classification is to help us remember and understand as many different living things as possible, and for this we can group them in different ways. A strict cladistics classification of all living things would mean we need to throw away pretty much all the labels that we use. Strictly, mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians will fall under fish, and fish will be classified as who knows what. I personally think we can use 'old fashioned' categories along with new ones ... we can know birds are dinosaurs but still speak of birds, without necessarily getting confused.
The problem is that this is intended as an educational piece and the way it's worded, to me at least, makes it seem like there is some sort of controversy or that there are competing ideas which isn't really the case. Surely the idea here is to teach the layman about dinosaur phylogeny and I don't feel like it's getting the full message across. Avialae is within theropoda. If it were me I would have gone as far as to include an image of a bird in the infographic. It's not me though, so do what you wish.
Sure thing. You've reconstructed the body is far too oval in shape, it's actually fairly flat across the topand from a top-down view it would not be circular, but widest at the hips and gradate notably thinner to a surprisingly thin shoulder area and neck. The armour is significantly less uniform than illustrated here, with large shield-like plates over the neck and shoulders, rows of different sized osteoderms over the ribs, then finally falling back into more uniform rows like you’ve reconstructed over the hips and tail.
For more information I'd recommend Carpenter's 2004 paper Redescription of Ankylosaurus magniventris Brown 1908 (Ankylosauridae) from the Upper Cretaceous of the Western Interior of North America.