Reading through the article it generally reads well although there are a few recurring prose issues that I have one is the varying tense using phrases such as that it could now support had marked had now and countless other examples As a basic rule of thumb the events happened in the past so relate that as simply as possible the now in the first example is redundant as in the third example though a clarification of the time would be beneficial In the second example the had is redundant The use of Rocks full name at occasional intervals in the article is unnecessary once he has been identified he should either be referred to by surname or a pronoun Similarly for other people in the article There are multiple times that the language in the article is more conversational than encyclopedic an extreme example of this is the use of feckless while subtler examples are again and again and pumpkin eaters rustics If you want I can work through the article with you and raise each prose point with suggestions but there is a much larger issue which needs to be solved first Throughout the article there are unreferenced claims and in places language that implies editorial comment which could suggest the use of original research This is particularly true of the Appearance and character and Contribution to Australian aquatics sections both of which only have one reference and it unclear if this reference supports the entire section or merely the bit before it  Other manual of style issues that require fixing although without much difficulty are  The use of semicolons to replicate headings simply use Heading instead  The use of a horizontal rule to seperate the above heading  The use of external links in the prose such as Prospero Coulon and William Hickey in the Early rowing matches sections  The blockquote from Patrick OFarrell is longer than I feel is necessary I dont think the quote is important enough to quote such a large amount of just cherry pick one of two of the more relevant quotes to make the point More relevantly though is OFarrell specifically referring to Rush Because if not the article certainly implies that it is  I will leave it there for the time being if you have any comments or questions dont hesitate to leave a message on my talk page and I will be more than happy to work through anything with you I will place the review on hold for the time being