Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Foguang Temple/archive1


 * 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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:59, 31 October 2009.

Foguang Temple

 * Nominator(s): Zeus1234 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because it has already been promoted to GA status, and I feel that with some recent improvements merits FA status. The Foguang Temple is an extremely important building in architectural history, and with its recent listing as a world heritage site, has been in the news recently. Because of this reasons, Foguang temple deserves to be on the main page. I have taken all the photos for the article as well. Zeus1234 (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review All images are by the nominator and appropriately licensed, I've removed forced image sizes since they override user preferences. Images all need alt text  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  16:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alt text done; thanks. Please see WP:ALT for guidance on the alt text. The "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page should help you find which images need alt text. Eubulides (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Done
 * Comments.
 * I know nothing about architecture, but a location map and/or a ground plan of the temple might be helpful.
 * I just made a plan (copied from a book) and added it. I'm afraid to say it's a bit ugly, but it will have to do.
 * If you literally mean copied from a book, unless the book is out of copyright, this is a copyright infringement, and cannot be used. If you mean it's based on a book illustration, you still need to amend the image description to say exactly what your source was .  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not copied directly, I just used the proportions to make my own map. I just added the source in a footnote on the caption.Zeus1234 (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The metric units need imperial conversions for the poor old yanks who don't understand this new-fangled stuff.
 * Done. But those old yanks should familiarize themselves with metric..... Zeus1234 (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Jin Dynasty is a DAB page
 * Fixed
 * Shouldn't the lead make it clear that this is a Buddhist temple?
 * Fixed
 * Lead doesn't mention present status, which you have a section for
 * Fixed
 * History is a bit thin, how was it identified as Tang dynasty? I also don't like the journalist style of making almost every paragraph a new section
 * I've expanded the history section. Unfortunately, I disagree with you about the sections. Firstly, there are two sections with two paragraphs. Secondly, if I did not have headings for each section it would be confusing. Why would I combine the East Hall and Manjusri Hall sections? They talk about completely different things.
 * As part of the persecution, Foguang temple was burned to the ground. - making this an earlier Foguang... would clarify
 * Clarified
 * In the layout, I'm unclear why the mountains determine the temple's orientation
 * Added a sentence to clarify that this is because of Feng Shui
 * While it is unclear as to the exact date of its construction = While its exact construction date is unclear
 * "The present" is not adequate, even your single source has more than that, and a building this notable surely has more information available? The same applies throughout the article, very few sources - should you enlist the help of a fluent Chinese speaker to find more information? Is the building open to visitors, if so how many per year?
 * I added more information about the present. The temple is open for visitors (I went there), and I'm certain it does not have cap, however I can't find any sources that say this. As for sources, I have added two more, including some information written by Liang Sicheng (in Fairbanks' book), which is considered the seminal work on the temple. Steinhardt's work is also very thourough, and I could certainly add more technical information about roof beams and brackets, but I'm not sure this will add anything to the article and bore readers. I don't expect any Chinese source will offer information as detailed as Steinhardt, as most of the works about the temple were published in the 1980s and earlier. The UNESCO nomination file has a list of scholarly works in Chinese that show this. I have also just consulted a second Chinese source that I have (a travel book), and it also does not offer any new information. I cannot easily access academic sources about the temple in Chinese.Zeus1234 (talk) 09:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I managed to get my hands on some Chinese books, as I've discussed in my comments below. Hopefully this will be enough.Zeus1234 (talk) 05:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * this gives more detail on restoration and threats
 * I've removed the spam and bolding from the ELs. At least one of your sources is in Chinese, please add to show this - it gives  - or a similar indication of source language  Jimfbleak  -  talk to me?  12:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I'm leaning towards opposing this FAC. It appears under-researched and superficial in its present form  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the changes you have make so far. Even when the other issues have been addressed, I'll probably wait until someone with a modicum of subject knowledge has commented before give an opinion.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  12:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * Current ref 18 (Global Heritage Fund) has the publisher run into the title link. Also lacks last access date. Also, this link appears in the external links also? Anything used as a reference shouldn't appear in the external links too.
 * I've removed the redundant EL  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  18:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.china.org.cn/english/TR-e/43126.htm a reliable source?
 * I've removed that source and added a better one. Unfortunately the new source did not have as much information. I will try and look for more info.Zeus1234 (talk) 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments By Redtigerxyz
 * I think the lead image can be changed, the temple is hidden in the trees
 * Unfortunately the trees do block the building, but that is the best photo there is. Check out the commons for all the photos I took of the temple, but I think you'll find that there are no better ones.
 * What are the unnamed black bars in the File:Foguang Temple Plan.jpg?
 * Those are minor buildings on the temple site.
 * Please cover these too in text. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I added a note on the diagram to make clear that these buildings are unnamed.Zeus1234 (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

-- Redtigerxyz Talk 13:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As the GA reviewer of the article, I think it is broad in coverage, but would like to see more detail for comprehensiveness, things that may need to be covered:
 * Guanyin Hall and "another hall dedicated to Samantabhadra": what was its structure, when created, destroyed? If they are not present, how do we know they existed? Location in the complex?
 * Apart from this second hall being mentioned, there is no additional information available about it. I was talking about the same hall though, so I've changed the first reference to correctly state that it was dedicated to Samantabhdra. Zeus1234 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just managed to find some info that said the hall was burnt down in the Qing Dynasty. I've added it to the article.Zeus1234 (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Date of original temple, accounts about it "As part of the persecution, Foguang temple was burned to the ground."
 * It is dated as fifth century during the northern Wei dynasty. There are no accounts about how exactly it was burned, except that apart from the Zushi pagoda, everything was destroyed.
 * The architecture of gates of the temple
 * None of the works discuss this, because the gate is not considered relevant by the scholars. Because it is not mentioned, I'm assuming that the building is of recent construction. When I visited the temple, the gate was under renovation, and you entered through a side wall.
 * "It was rediscovered by the 20th century architectural historian Liang Sicheng (1901–1972) in 1937" When lost? Last mention in the records
 * Rediscovery just means that it was only known to local people and not scholars. It would have been constantly inhabited by monks. Steinhardt indicates that the building was probably continuously mentioned in local records, but remained unknown outside the general area.
 * Any more texts refer to it?
 * I've consulted a chinese text about the temple, which Steinhardt describes as one of the two serious studies of the hall since Liang Sicheng in the 1930s. However, most of the text is technical, and there is very little additional information on the history of the temple. What there was I've added. The second Chinese text mentioned by Steinhardt is purely technical, and I don't believe that article needs more technical information about the buildings.Zeus1234 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Unlike most other Chinese temples, the Foguang temple is oriented in an East-West position due to there being mountains located on the east, north and south" what is the normal orientation
 * Fixed, added that the South to North orientation is standard
 * the main hall of the ( Five Dragons Temple), link the temple
 * I created a stub article for the temple and linked it
 * "The East Hall has not had any restoration work done since the 17th century, and suffers from water damage and rotting beam" how do we know, wasn't is discovered in 1930s?
 * See my response above
 * Funerary pillars: location in the complex?
 * The pillar is noted on the layout
 * I will try and get access to a Chinese work, that according to Steinhardt, is very comprehensive, that should answer some of the questions that have been raised that I have not been able to respond to with my current information. Zeus1234 (talk) 01:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got the Chinese book and added a bit more information.Zeus1234 (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The history seems lacking between the years 1147 and 2005. Shii (tock) 06:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but unfortunately there is simply no more information available that I can find. Most information about the history of temples is taken from stone stelaes at the site of the temple, and apart from the two Tang pillars that have been mentioned in the article, I am not aware of any other historical writings at the temple. I all the works I have read about this temple, 90% of the text is dedicated to the buildings themselves, and very little discusses the history. I think that this is largely due to the lack of historical information. This temple is extremely isolated, and it took a 'rediscovery' for people outside the area to learn about it. I would encourage people to look up the two Steinhardt books on Google Books. You will see what I mean about the lack of historical information.Zeus1234 (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Nice read, I agree that the paucity of information between 1147 and 2005 is unfortunate, but I'd point out that it also lacks info for 2005-2009. Is it still a monastery and if so how many monks are there, and what happens there (esp during the cultural revolution)? If it is a museum what sort of access is there? I also wonder about the materials used, stone and wood are mentioned, but not types of wood or types of stone. PS I made a few tweaks, hope you like them.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There doesn't appear to be any information about the type of stone or wood that is used in the temple. There is also no information that I could find about what happened to the temple during the cultural revolution. I would assume that it was protected due to its importance, because it does not seem to have been damaged (this can be inferred by looking at Liang Sicheng's research before the revolution). However, there are no reliable sources saying this, so I can not include it. Information about the cultural revolution can be hard to come by in Chinese language sources. I added a bit about the temple being open to the public. There is no information available about the number of monks.Zeus1234 (talk) 06:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking, obviously we can't use what we can't source. But I'm surprised if we can't at least determine whether it is currently a temple or a museum. Looking at http://globalheritagefund.org/where/foguang.html# I'm thinking that a bit more could be made of the Tang sculptures and the connection to Wutei mountain. Also the photo of the hall with one door is presumably a rear view - if so it would be worth saying so. And the phrase "Inside the hall are more than twenty sculptures and murals on each wall." can we separate out the sculptures and murals? Should this not be "Inside the hall are more than twenty sculptures, and murals on each wall", alternatively does each wall have more than twenty sculptures and murals?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the section on the sculptures. As for whether it is a museum or temple, I'm not sure what you mean. It will always be a temple, but I'm not certain whether it still has resident monks. In China there is no distinction between the two. All photos of buildings are from the front, not the rear of the building. Thanks for your suggestions. Zeus1234 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.