I've been on this site long enough to see several waves of new users arrive.0 The new users (a) inevitably don't understand the site, it's rules, or its culture1 and (b) inevitably believe that what we understand of science today is all there is to understand and nothing could possibly vary from it for any reason on earth — so say we all!
It takes time for each wave of new users to "grow up" and mature into the site's culture. Some individuals do so quickly, others have to be dragged along, kicking and screaming, because what they really want is to do what they want, when they want, without consequence.2
Unfortunately, per my comment from yesterday, there's no way to reasonably expect that any individual will take the time to actually read the tag wikis, or read through the help center, or take the time to read anything in Meta.3 It doesn't help that we're participating on a fundamentally non-objective, highly imaginative and creative site where popularity rules over conscientious judgement.
What do I mean by that? Over on Stack Overflow a question about programming might receive a dozen answers. Half of them will be duplicates of previously posted answers to the same question (because you can't even trust people to read through the answers already posted to a question). Of the remaining six, it's reasonable for people to judge and vote for the answer that represents the most effective or professionally implemented programming solution. In other words — incredibly objective questions get incredibly objective answers that are easily judged without emotion (aka, "popularity").
Over here, that's rarely the case. I've seen absolutely daft answers get the most votes because they were, for example, funnier.4 In an environment where popularity has so much influence, I'm not sure it's possible to achieve what you're asking for.
For example, the reality-check tag already states:
This tag should never be the only tag on a question, because this tag frames how a question should be answered, not the topic.
In other words, the OP is expected to provide one or more additional tags (and supporting information in the question itself) that help us understand what reality we're supposed to be using as a reference. As I mentioned in a comment to @Elemtilas' answer, the problem is that the OPs are asking questions with a ridiculous premise. Inevitably, what they think they want is "the most realistic dragon possible that could possibly evolve on Earth had Mother Nature just been accommodating."
In my humble opinion5, and contrary to what @Elemtilas suggested,6 the OP should be gently7 reminded that expecting us to create a scientifically-justifiable dragon is, actually, pretty much impossible or Mother Nature would have already done it. I suspect the OP really hasn't thought through the fact that what they really want is NOT a scientifically-accurate (e.g.) dragon, but a description that meets or exceeds suspension of disbelief, which requires just enough science to make the fiction consumable. In this way I'm not in disagreement with @Elemtilas — we really should be cutting the OP some slack and answering the question.
Finally, it is my observation that the quality of this site has dropped precipitously since the Monica Ciello affair and the resulting loss of so many moderators. My hat is off to @L.Dutch, who is a much nicer and level-headed person than I am, for doing a great job as moderator, but he appears to be acting fundamentally alone on a site that needs 2-4 more (MORE!) active moderators helping to remind people to follow the rules. People basically couldn't care less what help you're trying to give if you don't have a diamond next to your name.
So, the best answer to your question might actually be that we need more
police officers moderators.
0 And, if I want to be honest about it, I can remember when I first started using Stack Exchange and how I fought against rules I didn't understand, the development of which I didn't learn about quickly and therefore refused to respect. Candor mode off. And this is footnote 0 because it was added last and I didn't want to take the time to renumber them all.
1 If you want proof of that, see my comment thread here.
2 It doesn't help that we're living in a day and age where people actually think they shouldn't be judged for what they think, say, or do. My experience is that such people are the most judgemental in all of time and space... but that's another discussion.
3 On a site where a popular question will be viewed by thousands of people, at the writing of my answer, this meta question has been looked at a whopping 36 times. Maybe one of the last wave of new users is among that count. Maybe.
4 That question I referred to in footnote #1? That question was closed, then reopened, despite it being IMO a lousy question. But, hey, the OP got what he/she/it wanted, so who cares, right? There are days where this site is more like Reddit than Stack Exchange.
5 I'm an arrogant cus on most days, so that's a perfectly sound statement for me to make.
6 Which is really rare, because @Elemtilas and I usually think a lot alike when it comes to the operation of this site and its culture — but I'm not actually disagreeing with him. We really should give the OP much more of the benefit of the doubt and stop being science-Nazis about everything. I'll say that later in the paragraph. I don't like disagreeing with @Elemtilas.
7 By "gently" I mean with a soft whack to the head with a 2x4. The loss of moderators has impacted the quality of this site a lot. I'll mention that, too, in a moment.