`  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 Rock's 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 semi-colons 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 O'Farrell is longer than I feel is necessary, I don't 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 O'Farrell 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, don't 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. ''''''  `