# Talk:Illawarra Steam Navigation Company

As per either a recent request at or because this article was listed as fully or partly unassessed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment I have just now completed a rating of the article and posted my results to this page. Those results are detailed above in the template box. Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, I am unable to leave detailed comments other than to make the following brief observation: article provides a reasonably indepth knowlege of the subject area and probably just reaches mid importance However if you have specific questions, please write to me on my talk page and as time permits I will try to provide you with my reasoning. Please put my talk page on your watchlist if you do ask such a question because in the case of these responses I will only post my answer underneath your question. ALSO if you do not agree with the rating you can list it in the "Requesting an assessment section", and someone will take a look at it.--VS talk 11:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Cobargo was NOT captained by Luke Strotz.  ill stake my reputation on it. 82.6.124.99 (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The info was added in Feb 2008 by an editor who doesn't edit regularly here and who did not provide a cite.  A cite was requested but none has been forthcoming.  I have removed the information. --Matilda talk 21:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Illawarra Steam Navigation Company/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found that this article has massive issues that need to be urgently addressed.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
The prose is poor, perhaps 4/10. Many sections are messy, with short stubby paragraphs thrown in with no thought for flow or readability. The stopping points and ships should be organised in a clear table and the history expanded and written in clear prose.
Lead is completed inadequate for introducing the article.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Sections incomplete.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
So badly written that it is difficult to tell.
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. (If you are really busy, let me know and I'll give more time. I need to know however so I can see that someone is interested in addressing these concerns.) Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done what I can with the history section, but hopefully someone will stop by and clean it up where needed. :) I'll see what I can do with the rest. I won't touch the lead until last, as I tend to wait until then in order to ensure that it is a proper summary, but my major concern is with the ports and ships - a table might be ok, especially for the ships, but to be honest I'm not sure of the best way to present the information, especially given that the content may need to be expanded. - Bilby (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this on. I don't really know anything about this subject, so I'll leave the improvements up to you (although if you need extra help, please ask). Take as much time as you need and let me know when you think its ready for a reassessment. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, although there has been work, it seems to have stalled. The lead and the ports section have to be sorted out. If they are not in the next seven days then this article will be delisted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll finish it off over the weekend - it took a couple of weeks for the sources I requested to arrive. :) But I have everything on hand at last. - Bilby (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Really glad to see your still working on this, take as much time as you need, just keep me posted.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Brilliant improvements, I have no hesitation in passing this, excellent work.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is the best spot to explain. According to all the sources I have, the Illawarra Steamship Navigation Company was formed after an act of Parliament in 1858. It didn't exist, at least as the company being referred to here, in 1842, and the three companies which were to form it didn't appear until after that date. The National Library of Australia's newspaper database doesn't include January 1842 for the Sydney Morning Herald, as as it only has scans from later that year, so the recent edit which suggested that the SMH, January 27, 1842 [1] contained the 1842 date might be ok, but I can't verify it, and it is at odds with everything I can verify. However, the first mention of an Illawarra Steamship Navigation Company after that date in the SMH is in 1852, when a proposal to create the company was passed.[2] That company was not the same as the one later formed in 1858, though, as the proposal was to create a new company and purchase a steamship, rather than to merge three existing companies. The company doesn't really start to get discussed in the SMH until after 1859, when it started discussing the half-yearly meetings, and prior to that in 1858 when there was material on amending the bill in parliament.
Hopefully this will clarify the current situation where it seems IPs are insisting on changing it to 1842. - Bilby (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Between 1824 and 1972 there is already a General Steam Navigation Company. Mostly operating from the River Thames in London,UK.--Robkam (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Illawarra Steam Navigation Company. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718194650/http://www.mvbanks.com/history.html to http://www.mvbanks.com/history.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)