Talk:Shanhua Temple/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
starting reviewing on 01-07-2009 Mephiston999 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding my two cents, as I did not know Mephiston999 was reviewing the article and so I signed up and reviewed it. I did some copy editing which the editor is free to revert. My observations so far are the following:

"first founded" is used twice - I think just "founded" is enough as it indicated "first".

Fixed

I think more explanation needs to be given for the general reader who may not be familiar with Buddhist temples or Chinese history about the historical context and the general features of a temple.

See the note about pavillions and halls.

"After the takeover by the Liao Dynasty in 960, the monastery assumed its present configuration." Is there a temple there currently or just a monastery?

In chinese monastery and temple have the same character, and I was using them interchangably. I have changed everything to say 'temple'.

What are "halls and pavillons" e.g. what were/are they used for.

I agree that this should be explained, however an article about a particular temple is not the place to explain general Chinese temple architecture. I would like to write an article about Chinese temples in general, but need to find some good sources first.

Could an explanation be given of the significance of Dayong receiving an imperial presentation of sutras?

I cannot offer any reason why it is significant, merely that it is an event that occurred in history. My sources do not discuss any significance.

"5th puzuo" is linked to Yingzao Fashi but it is not clear why.

I changed Puzuo to say 'rank' which is talked about at the very beginning of the 'Yingzao Fashi' article about the 8 ranks.

What is a yuetai? Foreign words should be explained if they are not wikilinked.

Edited to say that it is a stone platform

Architectural features like the "Main Gate" need to be explained. The general reader will not know.

Edited to say that the main gate is the entrance hall.

I'll butt out and let the reviewer Mephiston999 finish! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Mephiston999 is no longer reviewing the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did not realise the article was under GA review - but have translated a number of terms into the more common English term, corrected one or two factoids, and added some links. Hope that did not decrease the quality of the article. Best wishes with the GA review. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The article is not currently being reviewed by Mephiston999.[1] This means another reviewer is needed. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed all the points brought up by Matisse.Zeus1234 (talk) 05:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is of course, welcome to pass or fail. In case she doesn't, I'm standing in the wings ready to review it, and may have some further comments to make if Mattisse doesn't take over. Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will look through it again. It seems to be improved. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is labeled in the article as "The Samantabhadra Pavilion" is called "The Puxian Pavillion in Shanhua Temple" in the image description. I have a book (Chinese Architecture, edited by Steinhardt that the picture caption if " Puxian Pavillon, Shanhua Monastary, Datong, Shanxi provice, rebuilt in 1953 following Liao-period style").
Also, the same book labels the image in the article info box as "Daxiongbao Hall, Shanhua Monaster, Datong, Shanxi province, eleventh century."
The book also says, "The Shanhua Monastery in Datong, Shanxi, built in the Liao-Jin period, is a wonderful example of twin pavilions in front of a Buddha hall.Along the main axis of the monastery from front to back are the front gate (Shanmen), Hall of the Three Sacred Ones (Sanshengdian), and the main Buddha hall (Daxiongbaodian). The pavilions on either side in front of Daxiongbaodian were dedicated to the bodhisattvas Manjusri and Samantabhadra; both structures were attached to the covered corridor that enclosed the monastery. Today Manjusri Pavilion and the corridor are gone; Samantabhadra Pavilion was rebuldt in 1953."
The book also says the Puxian Pavilion is one of the two-storied paired pavilions that stand on either side of the main north-south axis of the monastery. Paired pavilions such as Puxian Pavilion were usually three bays across the front with a mezzanine layer inside.
The books in the references need isbns.

What do yuu think? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source being used seems to use a novel way of translating the Chinese names of the halls into English - a literal translation that ignores the fact that the Chinese names are themselves translations of traditional Sanskrit (etc) names. The translations also do not accord with normal Wikipedia practices - e.g. in the naming conventions for Chinese.

For example, the "Daxiongbao" part of "Daxiongbaodian" is a translation of "Mahavira", which is a term used in English - and more often used than the indirect translation-transliteration "Daxiongbao".

"Daxiongbaodian" does not accord with ordinary Pinyin grammar - as reflected in Wikipedia's naming conventions. The "Dian" part is a descriptor - translated into English usually as "Hall". "Daxiongbaodian", if we were to take a Pinyin transliteration, should be "Daxiongbao Dian".

A further note to translations: Puxian is the Chinese translation of Samantabhadra, and Wenshu is the Chinese translation of Manjusri.

I don't know what the conventional practice is in such cases - where the English source uses a translation scheme that results in novel names. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I initially wrote the article with the Pinyin names, and user Palaceguard changed the names to Sanskrit, which is perhaps why there are some inconsistincies. I don't have a problem which system is used, however, I will make sure that behind the snaskrit names, there are also pinyin and characters to reflect their usage at the temple.Zeus1234 (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive also just added the ISBNs.Zeus1234 (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy (No original research, Naming conventions, Naming conventions (use English) etc.) dictates that we use the common names and naming conventions in the sources. It is not up to individual editors to translate and come up with novel names. The structures in this article are discussed in reliable sources and those names should be used. Further, the conventions of the original editor should not be changed without a consensus discussion. What are the names in the sources you are using? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will switch the names back to Chinese. One of the English sources uses Pinyin names, and the other one just uses the sanskrit name for one hall. Because of the lack of translated names, I think the English ones should be used to maintain consistency and clarity.Zeus1234 (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS): Clearly written
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Reliable sources c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): As is broad as is possible for a subject with little available information b (focused): Remains focused on topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: Stable
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
Pass/Fail:

Sorry to take so long. Congratulations! A brief article, but covers the available information. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]