Talk:Brandtocetus

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 28 September 2015 by reviewer Dodger67 (talk · contribs).

Cetaceans (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cetaceans, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CetaceansWikipedia:WikiProject CetaceansTemplate:WikiProject CetaceansCetaceans

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments

This is a valid, notable subject, albeit a stub, and while it is a little too technical for a general encyclopedia (jargon should be clearly defined and/or linked), and needs an appropriate {{Taxobox}}, I see no reason it shouldn't be an article, although like most stubs it could always use improvement. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Stubs have great value when they lead to a reliable source. I have no issues with the tone. Raggz (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just accepted this article at AFC, I added a taxobox adapted from a related genus. The article probably needs some tweaking by subject specialists. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]