I've read a lot of steampunk fiction over the last few months and most of it, I am sorry to say, isn't very good. And there is, I think, a reason for this - the assumption that writing steampunk is somehow different from writing in other genres.
Much of it seems to work on the premise that if you shoehorn enough steampunk ephemera into a story it'll be a good steampunk story. I don't think this is quite right.
A good story will stand alone without the props and gewgaws. if you're really clever the steampunkiness ceases to be the number of heroines in corsets and goggles and clever inventions and becomes an essential part of the warp and weft of the story writing - often understated and cleverly put together. 'The Strange Affair of Springheeled Jack' springs to mind as a great example of what I mean.
The same rules apply to writing Steampunk as apply to writing everything else, in my humble opinion. You can put as many airships and steampowered bicycles into a story as you wish, but if it isn't a very good story, it isn't going to be very good steampunk.