Talk:Australian blacktip shark

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Australian blacktip shark/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Just claiming this one now; reviews are getting snapped up at the moment. I'll give the full review in the next few days, probably in a few hours. J Milburn (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not strictly a problem with this article, but flake doesn't include a mention of this species
  • Added it to that article.
• "Galeolamna pleurotaenia tilstoni" That's a subspecies? Did Whitley mention the association with the common blacktip?
  • It's weird, Galeolamna pleurotaenia doesn't appear anywhere except in this form (with tilstoni), so I don't think Whitley intended it to be a subspecies of another species.
• In the caption, ("The common blacktip shark (pictured) is nearly identical to the Australian blacktip shark.") would it perhaps be worth clarifying that you mean in appearance?
  • Added.
• "This species typically reaches 1.5–1.8 m (4.9–5.9 ft) long" Using "the species" in this way isn't great- you're referring to individual members of the species, rather than the species as a whole
  • Changed to "It typically reaches..."
• "Thevenard Island" Worth a link?
  • It's one of the Mackerel Islands, which don't have an article either. I tend to think it's too insignificant.
• "However, some individuals have been recorded traveling longer distances, up to 1,348 km (838 mi)." Do we know why?
  • Not that I know of.
• "Cleveland Bay" Worth a link?
  • Maybe, though it's right next to Townsville and that article doesn't have it linked either.
• "the species range" species's?
  • I think it can work either way.
• Ref 4 cites the authors in a slightly different way
  • Changed.
• Category:Edible fish? I appreciate an awful lot of fish are probably "edible" in some way, but as a fish of commercial importance as a food source, this one seems appropriate.
  • Another one of those categories that are aggravatingly useless because they're so ill-defined. I wouldn't mind nearly as much if it was Category:Commercially targeted fish.

Pictures, sources and stability are good; it's a shame we don't have a picture of the species, but I understand that that is unavoidable. Note that I made a few edits. Generally a very good article, I'll be happy to promote once the above issues are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me know of further issues. -- Yzx (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I made a couple more fixes, and I'm now happy to promote. Great work, as usual. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)