*Not strictly a problem with this article, but flake doesn't include a mention of this species 
 *"Galeolamna pleurotaenia tilstoni" That's a subspecies? Did Whitley mention the association with the common blacktip? 
 *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? 
 *"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 
 *"Thevenard Island" Worth a link? 
 *"However, some individuals have been recorded traveling longer distances, up to 1,348 km (838 mi)." Do we know why? 
 *"Cleveland Bay" Worth a link? 
 *"the species range" species's? 
 *Ref 4 cites the authors in a slightly different way 
 *: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. 

 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.