Talk:Australian blacktip shark/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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