:OK, thanks. I found the description paper of the tracks (here's a link to it; it was cited in the blog post you sent me to). On page 43, it says the theropod would have been 10-19 meters, which definitely would put it on the list. The only reason I would think that we wouldn't want to include it is because is based on tracks. I'm not sure what the status of footprints is for this page. I would advocate for including it, but I'll ask the other editors what they think (I'm a little concerned about the potential hype generated from the 19 m upper bound estimate. It's probably only about the same size as the other large theropods we know of).