Talk:Dutch invasion of Saint Helena

Dutch invasion of Saint Helena has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: February 8, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: Saint Helena Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Saint Helena work group (assessed as Low-importance). British Empire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. British Overseas Territories Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Maritime / British / Dutch / European / Early Modern This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force British military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800) Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

A fact from Dutch invasion of Saint Helena appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 December 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that the first landing during the Dutch invasion of Saint Helena was defeated by English settlers throwing rocks? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dutch invasion of Saint Helena.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dutch invasion of Saint Helena/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zawed (talk · contribs) 03:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Comments as follows:

• No obvious issues identified but wonder if Anthony Beale worth a redlink

Agreed and linked - Dumelow (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• the settlement at Cape Town in Southern Africa.[2][1] : if it's your preference, I note the refs are not in chronological order here. Actually, just noticed, these refs are redundant anyway as they are used again for the following sentence. I would just cite the entire paragraph to [1] and [2] at the end.

I don't usually bother with the order of the refs but am happy to do so for GA level. I don't like whole paragraph citation where individual sentences come from different sources but agree that [1] and [2] should move here - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• established a settlement and fort.: perhaps namedrop Jamestown here (I assume that is the settlement referred to).

Agreed, think I must have had it that way as it wasn't Jamestown until after the Restoration. I've referred to it now as "later known as" - Dumelow (talk) 07:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an appropriate link for the Dutch navy?

Linked to Royal Netherlands Navy - Dumelow (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Would Jacob de Gens be worth a redlink? Ditto Anthony Beale.

Agreed and linked - Dumelow (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect it is not available, hence its absence, but anything on the size of the attacking forces/garrison at Jamestown?

Alas no - Dumelow (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• which they renamed Good Fortune.: is the original name of the fort known?

It was originally the Castle of St John, then James Fort. I've gone back and added some more detail to the Background section - Dumelow (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like, apart from the first sentence, the entire paragraph could just be cited at the end with [3] and [4].

Again, I prefer to not merge where individual sentences come from different sources, I did get rid of two [3][4]s in consecutive sentences - Dumelow (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Link sloop, Royal Navy

Done - Dumelow (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Add 4 May somewhere into the narrative; I assume that was the date the expedition arrived at Fisher's Valley.

Yes, good point! Added - Dumelow (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The second paragraph could be entirely cited to [3] and [5] at its end.

Again, prefer not to do this as I am only using one of the refs for one sentence - Dumelow (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• and, later in 1673,: is this year correct? If so, suggest rewording to the effect of "later that year" or similar.

Yes, it came through a Royal Charter of the same year. Changed to "later that year" - Dumelow (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No dupe links
• Image tags checked and OK

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zawed, thanks so much for looking at this (and so quickly!). I think I've addressed all your comments above, the only thing I didn't action was the refs, which I prefer to keep separate - Dumelow (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks all fine to me, passing as GA as I believe that this article meets the relevant criteria. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]