Well, it's pretty clear the same person who worships Sir Samuel Hood in that article also wrote the Battle of St. Kitts article. Just for accuracy's sake, in 1782 there was no island called "St. Kitts". The island was St. Christophers (name changed in 1968, iirc.)

And as long as we're questioning the clear and obvious bias of the Hood fan, let's at least mention the undeclared bias of

Both islands, despite being only 2 miles apart and quite diminutive in size were widely recognized as being separate entities with separate identities, until they were forcefully unified in the late 19th century.

While I'm as supportive as possible of local determination, the facts of the matter are that St. Kitts and Nevis (also not its name for much of the time under discussion) were settled by the same group of people (Nevis by europeans from St. Kitts), and have spent the vast majority of their modern history in constant exchange of culture and people due to their close proximity to each other, and in joint governance. They were not "forcefully unified" in any way, in that no force was used. Their independence was negotiated, as a group (St. Kitts, Nevis, and Anguilla), which does not support that line from the opening of the article.