Talk:Australian blacktip shark

Australian blacktip shark has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 17, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Sharks Low‑importance

	Sharks portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sharks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sharks 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.SharksWikipedia:WikiProject SharksTemplate:WikiProject Sharksshark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fishes Low‑importance

	Fish portal This article is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review[edit]

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)[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]