Talk:Illawarra Steam Navigation Company/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.''

This article has been reviewed as part of 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.

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)
 * 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:
 * a Pass/Fail:


 * 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)