Talk:Foguang Temple/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am reviewing the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Include an infobox, if possible
"rediscovered the Foguang Temple" how was it lost? forests, decline what?

There isn't any information on how it was 'lost'. I suspect that the temple was not really lost, but that no one knew how old it was, and it was only used locally. I have clarified this in the text.

murals are referred as a passing reference, should be a more detailed description
The sculptures in the temple must be described too. Info source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/96/ --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The opening image: the structure is blocked by trees. can the img be changed. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the pictures of the temple when I visited, and I can say that the only picture that clearly shows the front of the temple is the angled shot halfway down the article. The best picture is the one with the tree.

A few more comments:

What was the purpose of the temple? Did anything ever happen there other than building it and destroying it?

I have no sources that describe what non-architectural events took place at the temple.

References 13 and 14 can be combined, as can 3 and 5; 8 and 10; and 9 and 11. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes refs 13, 14: plaques presented by Sha'anxi Colorful Group reliable? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the plaque for the East Hall (which I have not used as a source) at [1] you will see that the information matches that of the UNESCO article. Unfortunately, both the plaque and the UNESCO article are incorrect in their statement that the hall is the oldest wooden structure in China. While at one point in time, it was believed to be the oldest, that is no longer the case. Also, I personally took all the photos for the article and have been to the temple. I don't think they would put plaques with misinformation at the temple itself.

I'll improve the article and get back to you when I think it's ready.Zeus1234 (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Sha'anxi Colorful Group is reliable, what is it? Find a better ref. Also, there are other pics at commons which can be selected, one really can't see the whole structure in the present pic. I will look at the article on 27th and decide if all concerns expressed by GaryColemanFan and me are appropriately answered. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see any other pictures at the commons which are better. The East Hall (by far the most important building at the temple) is blocked by trees, that's just the way things are. Do remember, I took all the photos of the temple at the commons. I have been to the temple! There are no better photos! The other photos are of the less important halls.

As for your concern about the reliability, The Colorful group is an organization that donates money for charitable purposes i.e. The Sichuan Earthquake. In this case, they must have donated money for the plaques to be put up. I'm not sure if they had any input into what information went on the plaques, but I doubt it. All the temples in the area have the exact same plaques, so it is likely the information came from the people working at the temple. Here is their web address [2] (Chinese only!). I cannot find another source about the Hall of Sangahara. My Chinese book does not mention it at all. The question, I think you should be asking is, why would a plaque on the building not be saying the correct information?Zeus1234 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong info adds doubts to it's reliability. The UNESCO site will be considered RS. Fine with img, if no other imgs available. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done making changes. However, I can not find any other references about the hall of Sanghagara. While the info on the plaque is not ideal as a source, it is the only source I have. If I removed the entire section about the hall, I would be doing the reader a disservice by not describing all the temple's buildings. The plaque does not make any outlandish claims, and in a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard about the plaque, opinion as to the reliability of the source was mixed. The discussion is at [3]However, since this hall is not very important compared to the other two halls, especially the East Hall, which takes up the bulk of the article, I think that having one slightly questionable source should not really matter, especially since it only is used in a very small section of the article.Zeus1234 (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait for the RS discussion to end or 2 days, whichever is shorter. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing the article believing that the plaque is RS, no other issues. The issue still at WP:RS/N. If proved non-RS, please replace the ref. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]