there is much stronger evidence to suggest all dromaeosaurs were feathered than not. when you consider that one of the most primitive and early dromaeosaurs was for all intents and purposes a four winged bird (microraptor) and we have no examples of any feathered animals losing all of their feathers during evolution, it's hardly a leap to depict a feathered austroraptor.
if anything i'd say this depiction isn't feathered enough.
No feathered animals? What do you call lizards? Honestly, reptiles could have evolved from any number of dinosaurs and because we have no DNA to test, there is no way to confirm which one they did evolve from, if indeed they did evolve from a single dinosaur, which I kind of doubt. In any case, there could have been any number of gains and losses of feather-like structures and we wouldn't know.
"Honestly, reptiles could have evolved from any number of dinosaurs and because we have no DNA to test, there is no way to confirm which one they did evolve from, if indeed they did evolve from a single dinosaur, which I kind of doubt."
this is brain poison.
i think it's pretty clear you don't understand anything about current paleontological and evolutional biology theories. and if you get hung up on the last word of the previous sentence i would submit that you don't really understand anything about science either, gladly living in a fantasy world where things only exist the way you want to picture them.
i mean, why complain about the feathers when the only known specimen of austroraptor is fragmentary? based on the way you seem to operate, it would be more pertinent to accuse the artist of assuming that austroraptor has sickle claws? i mean, we don't actually have the sickle claws!