Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sultanate of Singora/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Graham Beards 07:30, 17 May 2014 [1].


Sultanate of Singora

[edit]
Nominator(s): Singora (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Sultanate of Singora -- a little-known sultanate that existed in the deep south of Thailand until the late 1600s. The sultanate was ruled by a family of Persians. In my opinion, this is one of the most comprehensive English language accounts of the sultanate ever written. ( Singora (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

Comment – Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't the article go through a "good article" review before it can become a featured article candidate? Madalibi (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I agree. How would I do this? As stated, I only started using the SINGGORA page because that's what someone else had set up. It was just an empty page back at the beginning of January, but I always knew it wasn't ideal. Note too that a few pages on Wikipedia link to my article, so I guess you'd need a kind of re-direct to the new page. Singora (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: I just added a NOTE to the bottom of the page which mentions Singora's alternative spellings (ie, Singgora and Singkhora). Singora (talk) 06:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed all instances of SINGGORA from the infobox. If someone can show me how to set up a re-direct, I'll move everything to Sultanate of Singora Singora (talk) 06:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and moved the article. Next time when you need to, point to the drop-down menu next to the search box (if you're using the default skin) and select "Move". The redirect will be created automatically. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is definitely better. Singora (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd start in the lead by stating what it was (sultanate/kingdom/self-governing body in X century) rather than saying it was the precursor of Sonkhla in the first sentence.
I think it's actually quite important to make the link between Singora and Songkhla at the beginning of the article. Present-day sources sometimes refer to it as "ancient Songkhla" or "the old town at Khao Daeng". Other sources use the names interchangeably.
For example, see page 35 of this PDF: [[2]]. I use this source in the article, by the way, but link to the government website instead of SCRIBD. The text reads "Sultan Syleyman Shah governed Singgora city (Song Khla) 400 years ago". This sentence is also pertinent to the question above re: Singora or Singgora.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )[reply]
OK, I just changed the first sentence in the lead. It now reads The Sultanate of Singora was a short-lived city-state in southern Thailand and precursor of the present-day town of Songkhla.
Singora (talk) 06:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect . Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In general, we don't use article names in heading titles, hence The Singora legacy would be fine as Legacy.
Done.
I am wondering whether the Persians in 17th century Siam section would be better closer up the top of the article as it gives some context (?)
This is actually the last block of text I wrote. I see it as a sort of appendix. I also see it as something that could be developed in another Wiki article.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )[reply]
I made some changes with (hopefully) sufficient explanation in the edit summaries - let me know if they are okay.
Yep -- your edits are fine. I had that sentence "The tomb of Sultan Sulaiman enjoys an atmospheric setting in a Muslim graveyard". I thought it sounded quite good, but was aware that it wasn't encyclopedic.
( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )[reply]
It can be a fine line between sterile prose to concise and engaging prose to adding some words to make it more engaging to too wordy...and sometimes folks views on this differ. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Support on comprehensiveness and prose, though concede my knowledge in the area is lacking, so this would be trumped if other readers found issues. Overall, a nice read -a concise, engaging article on a (to me) unknown piece of history. I don't really know enough to be too confident about its comprehensiveness but it appears to cover the topic well, and I can't see any other glaring fixable prose issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! ( Singora (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC) )[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

[edit]

Excellent article. Support on prose, though i have no knowledge of this area of history. One suggestion. In the section 'destruction', the article says "He then described how Singora's demise was brought about by a French cannoneer employed by the Siamese army" followed by a quote. I support the use of quotes of primary historical documents, but not reliance on them to be the only statement of the facts - the quote should be retained, but the expanation of how the French cannoneer brought about Singora's demise should be summarised in the article text. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a good point. In a version of the article from January 31 ([[3]]), I summarized the 'destruction' section with "Diplomat Simon de la Loubere wrote that the war had lasted twenty years and ended when the sultan was captured by a French cannoneer working for the Siamese army"
I've just re-jigged the current version. It now reads He then described how Singora's demise was brought about by a French cannoneer who crept into the city one night and single-handedly captured the sultan. What do you think? Singora (talk) 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yep, that sorts it, thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Admiral Niphon Sirithorn (a former admiral of the Royal Thai Navy) We already know that he was an admiral, just tell us that he was in the RTN.
    • Done. I've written : Present-day descendants of Sultan Sulaiman include Admiral Niphon Sirithorn, a former Commander-in-Chief of the Royal Thai Navy. Both the RTN and list of commanders are linked.
  • Link Prime Minister of Thailand and Royal Thai Navy on first use.
    • Done.
  • Delete the specifics about his descendants from the lede and combine the last two paragraphs in the lede. You used almost the exact same text in the main body.
    • Done.
  • Fix your spacing of the fort numbers in the para on the forts.
    • You're completely right. I overlooked that. Changes done.
  • Put all of the titles in English-language works in title case.
    • Done. It looks neater.
  • Add place of publication for all books.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going through the refs with a gimlet eye in Nikkimaria's absence.
    • Sources missing place of publication, including all three theses, Good Man Town, Montesano, Syukri. Those that do have it have it in the publisher instead of the location field. You don't have to have place of pub, but you do need to be consistent about using it, either all or none.
      • I didn't understand this at first, but now I see what you mean. All references in the following sections now have appropriate info in both the location and publisher fields:
  • I fixed a couple of non-capitalized words in titles for you and de-capitalized a French-language title. But you still have problems with the titles in some of your refs.
    • I've been through this again and have:
      • 1. made sure everything in the references section is in title case;
      • 2. ensured all quotes from primary sources in the body of the article are in title case;
      • 3. changed the link in the notes section to title case. Singora (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need fuller citations for works linked in the refs, suggest moving those to the sources section with only title/author and page number, if any, in the refs.
    • Is this a suggestion or recommendation? If it's the latter, I'll readily oblige, but could you direct me to a decent Wiki article that I can use as a sort of template. Basically, how should I format the web links and would it be best to put them below the PhD theses or under the journals. Singora (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, do you want me to verify the sourcing? I can do that, no problem, but was unclear if you wanted me to do so or had someone else in mind.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost forgot. A couple of page and date ranges in your references have just hyphens instead of en-dashes like the rest.
  • Missing terminal period for refs 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 30, 31, 32, 43.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  • Singora, I take it this is your first FA nomination? If so, a belated welcome! One of the hoops we generally ask someone new to jump through is a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Unless one of the above reviewers would like to undertake that in the next couple of days, we'll list a request at the top of WT:FAC.
  • Sturm, it looks to me like you might have undertaken a source review for formatting and reliability?
  • Lastly, Singora, you have a few duplicate links in the article. You can highlight and review these using this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Singora

  • 1. Hi Ian. Yes, this is my first FA nomination. I set up this account in January to create the Singora article. I'd been researching it for about 18 months prior to that.
  • 2. RE: close paraphrasing. Yes, this was an issue. A reviewer called Casliber picked up on a sentence I'd written: "Exploring the ruins of Singora is an adventure for history and archaeology enthusiasts". This sentence was pretty much copied and pasted from the source it linked to. Casliber changed it. Yesterday I changed another sentence. I'd written that "Singora was devastated beyond recovery", which was very similar to the source. I changed it to "Singora was destroyed and abandoned".
  • 3. I've just stripped out all duplicate links.
  • 4. References. Let me help you. I'll give you what I think are the most relevant and accessible links in order that you can check things:
  • 5. If you need further help, do please let me know.

More comments from Singora. RE: references Singora (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1. I like this. It's tourist blurb produced by the Royal Thai Government, but it works well. See page 35 for a quick overview of Sultan Sulaiman and his family.
  • 2. This is the Thai language website for Phattalung province. Google Translate does a good job of rendering it into English. You'll see that Sultan Sulaiman, son of Dato Mogol, assigned his brother, Pharisees, to develop and strengthen the nearby town of Chai Buri. This is as per the text in my article.
  • 3. This is a link to the Thai language website for the the Royal Thai Navy. Google Translate fails with this text, but you'll see nonetheless that Admiral Siriton (former Commander of the Navy) "celebrates" being a descendant of Sultan Sulaiman.

Source review

  • Old Town at the Foot of Khao Daeng Hill (Ancient Town) doesn't really support the text either time it's used. It mostly talks about surviving structures without discussing access. It's not the sole source either time it's used so I'd just purge it from the article.
    • Agreed and done. This was the weakest and perhaps least credible of my sources. You talk about access: you're referring to the sentence "the ruins of Singora are open to the public". This sentence (now removed) was added by CasLiber. The ruins are indeed open to the public, but there's no "formal" archaeological site in Singha Nakhon. The ruins are scattered on and around the foothills of the mountain and very few sites are signposted.
  • Consolidate footnotes 21 and 22.
    • Yes, done. I've used your battleship article as a sort of template.
  • No other issues discovered in the other half-dozen or so English-language sources that I examined.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492 - I know you're probably not going to need another support, but what the heck. (BTW, I hear that this article is being translated to Indonesian, with the goal of making it featured)
    • Do we need such accurate geocoordinates for a kingdom? I think (though I'm not an expert by any means) that this gives a diameter of only a few hundred meters.
      • The area is sufficient. The walls ran for about 100 meters from the sea to fort 1 and then took a 90 degree turn and continued for about 300 meters to the mountain. The city, then, was flanked on two sides by the walls and by the sea and mountain on the others. I've actually just tweaked the coordinates to reflect this better. Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • other accounts noted the protection granted to Persians by the king. - is king the right terminology here?
      • Per Ravenswaay, p.66:
        • Only the Moors are still free from this slavery, which is rather surprising, but it seems that they (for some special reasons ) are under the protection of the king. Singora (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Names of cities etc. should be linked at first mention outside the lede, as well as in the lede.
      • Why? The article's certainly not long enough that a reader is going to forget the terms. I only link once unless the article is massive.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good point. WP:OVERLINK only says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." (rather than recommend linking both the lede and first occurrence). Singora, you can ignore this comment if you want. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Khao Daeng mountain - Pretty sure this should be Khao Daeng Mountain (or even Mount Khao Deng?) per capitalization standards at Lake Erie and Rocky Mountains, among others.
    • Dato Mogol - Is dato an honorific here? It feels like Datuk to me. Just a question, not really something that affects this FAC.
    • I checked the original source when reviewing quotes for the translation, and it checks out, but to be safe I recommend double checking as it is quite easy to (unconsciously) correct the older spelling. I have the same issue when writing Indonesian using the Soewandi Spelling System.
    • tin, lead and pepper - are these WP:OVERLINKING?
    • "had a perfect harbor" - Anything less POV, say a sheltered inlet, or...? The word "perfect" doesn't sit well with me when used in Wikipedia's encyclopedic voice.
    • Queen of Pattani - If this was a sultanate, would she be a sultana rather than a queen?
    • "frequented" - Why is frequented in scare quotes?
    • If the article is at Constantine Phaulkon, why do you use Constance Phaulkon?
    • The article feels a little heavy on images. I know, copyright wise, they are okay, but are they all necessary for the discussion in the article?
    • they were built on the base of fort 10 in the 1830s to commemorate the defeat of rebellions in Kedah (at the time occupied by Siam) - Do we have an article on these rebellions?
    • an opportunity to 'explore' part of the mountain. - why the single quotes, when you use double quotes earlier?
    • Why no mention of the Bunga Mas outside the image caption? Assuming the one in the image is a Singora bunga mas. If not, I am not sure we should use the image.
      • The photo was taken at a museum in KL; the tree is probably from Kedah. I've used the photo for illustrative purposes only: I need to give a brief introduction to the concept of suzerainty, vassal states and tribute; readers need to understand what Sultan Sulaiman was breaking free from when he declared independence. The photo works because it's quite colorful and, hopefully, will attract readers' attention to the caption. But I've kept the bunga mas out of the main article as IMO it's too much detail for the average reader. This said, the photo could easily be replaced with something else. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ayuthaya chronicles - Is this a proper name, like Hikayat Patani, or just a form of referring to them? If the former, it should be Ayuthaya Chronicles.
    • The section Persians in 17th-century Siam feels somewhat out of place, and rather tacked on, at the bottom. Is there any way to work this into the narrative, even a bit of it?
    • Do we have any a) more recent academic discussion of the sultanate, or b) roughly contemporary Thai commentary? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • RE: point A. I could dig out a few links if you really want them.
      • RE: point B. References can be found in the Phattalung Chronicles and the chronicles of the na Songkhla family. See page 8 of this History of Patani. The text regarding Singora and Sultan Sulaiman comes from the Phattalung Chronicles. The website for Phattalung District Office states that Sulaiman assigned his brother, Pharisees, to develop the nearby town of Chai Buri in Phatthalung Province; the source for this is once again the Phattalung Chronicles. I don't have access to the Ayuthaya Chronicles, but I know there is a passage that describes how a Siamese general named Decho managed to bribe the guards at Singora in order to gain entry to the citadel. The passage tells how the city was then burned to the ground. There is a Thai language PhD thesis which quotes this, but I don't want to use it as a source since much of it is sloppy and inaccurate. I'll show it to you if you want, though.
      • Use Google translate to read this article. It lists some of Sultan Sulaiman's descendants and references the Phattalung Chronicles.
      • Thanks for your comments / feedback. Singora (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I would be able to read the thesis (and I wouldn't trust GTranslate for this). That sounds quite interesting, though, if only we had access to the chronicles. Re: point A, do any of them offer anything not in the article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up -- this page is getting quite long so I may have missed it but did anyone get round to the spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, since that'd be about the only thing holding up promotion? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From Singora Yes, a helpful guy called STURM did them. I actually just spent half an hour writing a detailed reply to CRISCO'S points and then lost everything when your server went down. I'll now start again as I'd like to address his comments before you do anything.

  • Well I know he did a source review for formatting and reliability, but it wasn't quite clear to me if that included a spotcheck of some sources to ensure they were being used accurately and without any close paraphrasing -- Sturm, can you confirm or deny...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CRISCO

  • 1. I found the photo of the Singora cannon on Flickr. I contacted the photographer and asked for permission to use the photo in a Wikipedia article. He emailed me back and said yes, as long as he's credited as the owner. So how do I go about doing this?
  • 2. RE: "recent academic discussion of the sultanate". I'll show you two English language sources written by Thais. I can't use either of them as they contain errors.
    • 2.1 From a journal published by Chulalongkorn University, THE SHI’ITE MUSLIMS IN THAILAND FROM AYUTTHAYA PERIOD TO THE PRESENT.
    • 2.2. See page 52.
    • 2.3 The family tree is good, but notice how:
      • 2.3.1. "After the usurpation of King Prasat Thong in 1629, Sulaiman declared the independence of the Sultanate kingdom of Songkhla". Wrong. It was Pattani that declared independence in 1629. Singora accepted Siamese suzerainty until 1642.
      • 2.3.2. "He and his successors ruled Songkhla until the kingdom was invaded by Siamese troops in 1668". Wrong. Sulaiman died in 1668; the sultanate wasn't destroyed until 1680.
  • 3. A PhD thesis written in English by a Thai.
    • 3.1. Pages 25-28 discuss the sultanate, but the tone is amateurish. See how on page 28 the author tells us that Singora was destroyed in 1680 AND 1685. Sure, the guy gives us a brief account of the sultanate's destruction, but the quote is unsourced.

Singora (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another question, probably the last one: I noticed that the actual physical description of the city state (geography, how big it was, etc). Do we have any sources which discuss it? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you mean since my article doesn't discuss the sultanate's size. I only mention its location and "ideal port".
    • For info in French as reported in the 1680s, read Jacq-Hergouach, pp. 80, 185.
    • Note: I'll change "city-state" to "port city". I think "port city" is more descriptive and acts as a primer for the city had what was described as an ideal harbor. Pattani was also a port city. See the first paragraph of this JSTOR article: historic port city of Patani.
    • In case you missed it, here again is the Flickr URL for the Singora cannon: Photo of Singora cannon on Flickr. As stated, I have permission to use this photo and would like to do so.

Singora (talk) 17:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Sorry, I seem to have forgotten to finish that sentence. The "article doesn't discuss the sultanate's size." That's exactly my question: do we have any sources that do, so that we can include some information (as in other articles on states, countries, cities, etc.)?
        • I've not found any reliable sources. You can find fairly detailed discussion of the sultanate in Thai language blogs and forums, however. If you're interested, you could do this:
          • 1. See Choungsakul, pp. 44–45.
          • 2. Notice how on page 44 the author says that Songkhla was known as Singora among "Western people". This is wrong. The engraver of the cannon in Chelsea signed his name Tun Juma'at Abu Mandus of Singora. The Thai name Songkhla came later.
          • 3. Page 45 refers you to a map.
          • 4. The key for the map tells you that area 1 is Songkhla at Khao Daeng. This is the former sultanate.
          • 5. Print off the map.
          • 6. Set its opacity to about 50% and superimpose it on a Google map.
          • 7. Zoom out and calculate the area.
          • 8. Do NOT however add this figure to my article as not only do the above steps constitute original research, the map is not entirely accurate.
      • I don't see any comments from the Flickr user that the image was released under a Wikipedia-friendly license. — Crisco 1492 (talk)
        • Never mind. I don't want to bother the guy again.

Singora (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, all of my comments have been addressed. Support on prose (though I still feel we could lose one image without much issue). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have the distinct impression you don't like my wonderful photography!! Oh well. The photos were actually taken with a Samsung Galaxy. How about if I delete the photo of fort 5, bring fort 8 down into the legacy section and make the Sultan's tomb a bit bigger? Singora (talk) 05:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not an issue with the quality of the images (I understand the issues with taking photographs under such harsh lighting), but how the images interact with the text. One of the reasons appears to be the forced image size, which is generally not recommended (per WP:IMGSIZE). Let me have a shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This revision is, IMO, a little bit easier on the eyes at my laptop's resolution and lower (1366*768): the image sizes are standardised (per IMGSIZE), and there are not three images in immediate succession. I edited the captions a bit, so that we could a) keep Fort 5 while still providing encyclopedic value to the reader, b) avoid referencing material already referenced, c) avoid giving information in captions that is not important for understanding (especially if given in-text) and d) information in the captions supports / expands on information in the text. Admittedly this means losing image resolution, but (sadly, perhaps) that's what current policy dictates. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

No one has opposed this article; it has support from:

  • 1. Cas Liber
  • 2. Hamiltonstone
  • 3. Sturmvogel 66
  • 4. Crisco 1492

What else do I need to show / provide? Singora (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sultanate_of_Singora/archive1&oldid=672745856"