Talk:History of Saint Helena

message: "Two Japanese ambassadors to Rome landed at the island in 1581."  I must say that nearly knocked my socks off. --Smack 04:37, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Obviously it's not the Roman Empire :) I'm sure it means they visited the Pope. Adam Bishop 04:42, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: For explanation, see Talk:Saint Helena#History section (again). 86.161.40.145 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Under construction 

message: In "Island Life", Alfred Russel Wallace (see the article) talked about deforestation, the impact of invasive species and about the impact of European colonization on Saint Helena.
He refers to the early 18th century ebony (the wood) disappearing.  
In this history article I shall wikilink the Saint Helena ebony plant as Trochetiopsis ebenus.--User:Brenont (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alfred Russel Wallace and Saint Helena ebony 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.historyofnations.net/africa/sainthelena.html
*:Triggered by \bhistoryofnations\.net\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: This is a preliminary list of sources I'm going to use to update Historical Sections of this page.
Grove, Richard H. Green Imperialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print
J.A. von Mandelslo, the voyages and travels of ambassadors sent by Frederick Duke of Holstein to the Grand Duke of Muscovy and the King of Persia begun in 1633 and finished in 1634 whereto are added the travels of J.A. de Mandelslo, 2nd ed., London, 1669
Francis Godwin, The man in the moone; or, A discourse of a voyage thither, London, 1638
Daly, Reginald A. "The Geology of Saint Helena Island." Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 62.2 (1927): 31-92. JSTOR. Web. 24 February 2014.  
Brooke, Richard K. Lockwood, Julie L. and Moulton, Michael P. "Patterns of Success in Passeriform Bird Introductions on Saint Helena." Oecologia 103.3 (1995): 337-342. JSTOR. Web. 28 February 2014.
Cronk, Q. C. B. "The History of Endemic Flora of St. Helena: Late Miocene 'Trochetiopsis- like' Pollen from St Helena and the Origin of Trochetiopsis." New Phytologist 144.1 (1990): 159-165. JSTOR. Web. 28 February 2014.
Grove, Richard. "Conserving Eden: The (European) East India Companies and Their Environmental Policies on St. Helena, Mauritius and in Western India, 1660 to 1854." Comparative Studies in Society and History 35.2 (1993): 318-351. JSTOR. Web. 28 February 2014.
Cronk, Q. C. B. "The Past and Present Vegetation of St Helena." Journal of Biogeography 16.1 (1989): 47-64. JSTOR. Web. 28 February 2013.
by Baldwinwt (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: The lead-in section of this article is definitely understandable but does not necessarily summarize the main points of the rest of the article.  I really liked the second sentence that starts with "Claiming to be Britain's second oldest colony..." since I thought that gave a good synopsis of why the island might be important.  However, I thought that it could have at least briefly touched on the major topics that the rest of the article gets into, for example expanding upon the importance of shipping and how the island was used for that.  If nothing else, the lead-in section could be expanded by at least another paragraph or two to include some of the key points.  In regard to the structure, I felt that some of the positives were the headings and subheadings, as these divided up the article very well and they will make it easy to follow while reading the article and searching for information.  There were some external links which could also be followed for more information, and I really didn't see the need for additional appendices or footnotes.  I think the weakest part of the article's structure is when it comes to images and diagrams, as there are only two very small pictures for an entire article that is mostly large blocks of text.  This could easily make the article too dense and difficult to follow, so I think working in more pictures and/or diagrams would be a definite must.  The article is arranged chronologically, so that does aid in making it easy to follow.
As a whole, I thought the article was balanced very well.  There was no single section that received too much coverage, and the sections that were a lot longer than others were justified as they also were sections that covered the longer spans of time as well (e.g. section with 150 year span of history was longer than section with 30 year span of history).  Thus, these sections deservedly received more coverage than others.  As an extension of coverage, the article coverage was for the most part neutral and unbiased.  It seems hard to include any type of negative elements into an article about the history of an island, and as a whole the article does a great job with staying neutral.  Finally, this article has plenty of footnotes, many from books and government sources.  This is definitely a positive for this element.  One drawback was that there seemed to be some sources cited from newspaper articles and a few other questionable sources that may contain some bias in their writings, and there didn't seem to be many journal articles cited, so maybe more emphasis could be placed on finding scholarly journal article sources and less on newspaper articles or websites.  As a whole, the article is well put together and with a little more work can be a very strong contribution to the Wikipedia community.
Srk017 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I will be evaluating the entry with the heading "Ecological History of Saint Helena." First, I will address what I think worked well in this section. For one, there appeared to be a very neutral perspective; there was no clear bias in the writing that would lead a reader to question the credibility of the information. Additionally, the author cited two credible sources, both written by Richard Grove, a respected authority on environmental issues, which seem to offer valuable information about the subject matter. Finally, the section seems to offer a wealth of valuable information about the subject matter. 
	Now, I will address where the article falters and where some improvements might be made. First off, I think that the section might be more appropriately titled "Ecological Significance of Saint Helena," as the section mostly discusses the importance of Saint Helena to the study of ecology. In other words, the section is focused on the ways that the history Saint Helena has shaped ecology, and not so much the ways that ecology has shaped the history of Saint Helena. Next, I think the grammar and language could be improved; the section contains a number of typos and grammatical mistakes, which makes it difficult to decipher the meaning of some of the sentences. Finally, I think the structure of the section might be altered to paint a more cohesive picture of Saint Helena's ecological signficiance. For example, the author first addresses the heavy deforestation that occurred on Saint Helena, then makes an offhanded comment about the Foresters, and then returns to a discussion about deforestation. Maybe if these two thoughts were paired at the end (even if they do not pair chronologically), the section would gain some cohesion. All told, I think the article is well cited, unbiased, and informative, but if it was more clearly written, reorganized, and retitled, I think it would be much more effective. 
Aleary1 (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: I also wanted to add a few comments here. I think the two peer reviews above offer very helpful and insightful feedback on structure, images/text balance, the neutral perspective, mechanical issues (grammar, sentence structure), and headings/titles. They also point out the relative strengths and areas for improvement. This is an important article and I'm glad you selected it to work on. My feedback is mostly regarding the content and where you might go from here. You emphasize Grove's analysis of the importance of islands for understanding deforestation. I think you can say much more about why this was so at the time, and how islands have since continued to play similar roles in the history of ecology. I also thought you could say more about what the Forsters' studied on the island. What questions did they have? What materials did they collect? What were their conclusions?  Third, I thought you could continue the discussion of the history of ecological study on the island further in time, as I'm sure your sources indicate other studies done in the 19th and 20th centuries. Finally, I thought the content could take advantage of Wikipedia's other entries by cross-linking certain concepts or people to other Wikipedia pages. Looking forward to more! --Enstandrew (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further comments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Saint Helena. 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  tag to http://www.g4g4.com/pMyCD5/HISTORY/GAZ2.DOC
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326173143/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/st-helena-proj-memo.pdf to http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/st-helena-proj-memo.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110409220655/http://www.bweaver.nom.sh/ to http://www.bweaver.nom.sh/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified