This article is written in Singaporean English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, centre, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Kingdom of Singapura received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics 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.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Singapore 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.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore
This article is written as if the story as described in Malay Annals is completely true, and is full of dubious assertions. For example, the claim that Wang Dayuan's account refuted the Portuguese accounts is really odd, given that Wang preceded the time of Parameswara by many decades, it is impossible for Wang's account to refute anything about a later date. Another claimed that Sri Tri Buana was "officially recognized as a sovereign by an envoy of Yuan Emperor", how can that be true when there is no record of Sri Tri Buana in Chinese history? The article seems to be deliberately stretching the truth to present what is questionable as real. I have removed some of these, but there are a lot more. This article needs a serious overhaul. Hzh (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that many historians doubt the existence of most of the kings (only Parameswara may be considered a genuine historical figure), and they thought that Singapura/Temasek was a vassal state of the Majapahit and the Thais in the 14th century. That a significant settlement existed in Singapura is not under dispute, but the existence of the line of kings as described in the Malay Annals is. The issue of the historicity of the kings extends to their individual articles and how they are written. Hzh (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated above, the article needs rewriting. The emphasis on the narrative as given by Malay Annals needs to be balanced by other views, some of what's written are also interpretations not quite in the original sources, not even in the Malay Annals (you can read a translation of the Malay Annalshere). There are also what appear to be copyright infringements with extensive copying from copyrighted sources, therefore would need to be rewritten or removed. Hzh (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
