Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom of Singapura/archive1

Kingdom of Singapura

I've listed this article for peer review because of issues in the article with presenting uncertain and possibly mythical history as if it is real. The only source for large part of the list of rulers and the events as presented is the Malay Annals, and historians don't regard it as entirely reliable. For example, some thought that most of the rulers of Singapura were invented, the only one known to be historical is Parameswara (unmentioned by the Malay Annals but thought to be the same person as Iskandar Shah of the Malay Annals), and whose story is very different according to Portuguese accounts. The article does not question many of the stories as presented in the Malay Annals, and is full of dubious statements, mixing true accounts with possibly mythical ones. There were also attempts to skew the narrative to suggest that the accounts as given in the Malay Annals to be true. I have adjusted some of these, but I think the article as a whole needs to be overhauled so that it is written in the right tone and bring it up to a standard suitable for an article on history. Input would therefore be appreciated on what may be done to make it better.

Thanks, Hzh (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• It seems pretty good to me, but you could make it more accessible to outsiders like me by adding years to the history section headers, e.g. Sang Nila Utama (13th–15th century C.E.).
• In the section on Administration, certain positions are in bold font. I am not certain whether this is allowed by WP:MOS: I have never seen anyone else do it.
• The John N. Miksic reference has two separate citations, with only the page numbers differing. Better merge and use short footnotes.
• I have noticed that some of your main sources are not quoted much by scholars. I have not checked them all, but you might want to replace any source that is not quoted much by a more mainstream scholarly source. As an outsider with little knowledge on the subject, that is just a general recommendation.

--S Khemadhammo (talk) 13:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. The suggestions will be used in process of rewriting the article. The problem for now is that some of what's written appear to be original research not supported by the sources, and parts of them also appear to be copyright violation. (I didn't write those, the person who wrote those parts appear unwilling to rewrite them). It may take a while checking different sources. Hzh (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, good luck with it! In the meantime, may I ask a bit of your time to help peer-review the article here? Thanks. --S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Certainly, but it may take a while as it appears to be a very detailed article. Hzh (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. Thank you! --S Khemadhammo (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

There is a problem with listing dates as there is uncertainty if the people or even the kingdom are real. Fixed the bolding, and the sources will be checked thoroughly later. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)