> I failed to find a face in the original article.
The second image in the original Ars Technica article shows the side view of its head/face very clearly. According to the caption: its head is still partly enclosed in the concretion it was found in — which IMO gives it the appearance of having its head resting on a rock.
After looking at that, and the third image — an artist's rendition of how it might have looked when alive — the first image should make more sense: its snout is at the front of the image, the bulges of both its eye sockets are clearly visible slightly further back, and the creature looks like it is laying down (and has been somewhat flattened) facing towards the camera, looking slightly to the right of the photographer.
That doesn’t sound like high praise! The quality of the CGI on that show leads me to deduce they were short-changed rather badly given the reported production costs.
