# Talk:Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery

There is more than 1 temple known as the "Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery". Another one is the Qishan Wanfo Temple, AKA Qishan Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery, in Fuzhou. This article should be moved to Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery (Hong Kong) or Man Fat Tsz Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery (Hong Kong), and then this page should be converted to a disambiguation page that links to both this article, and redlinked to Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery (Fuzhou) or Qishan Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery (Fuzhou). Badon (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

See this image for more info: File:Stone chinese dragons.jpg. Badon (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It seems to me that "ten thousand buddhas" is a general term, at least in Chinese chararcters. I have to say that most search hits do point (at a glance) to the one in Sha Tin, HK. "Man Fat Tsz Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery" is not a good title since that's repeating (Man Fat Tsz literally means Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery). --Cold Season (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The search hits will change when the article titles change, because search engines place high priority on Wikipedia in taking cues on what should be shown in searches. Can you explain more about "ten thousand buddhas" being a general term? Is it used very often for lots of different things, maybe even things that are not monasteries? If so, then a disambiguation page will be even more important. What do you think of using the names Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery (Fuzhou) and Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery (Hong Kong)? Badon (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The article title needs to be more specific. Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery can redirect to Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery (Hong Kong) if it is the more well known one but this article should be specific that its the one in Hong Kong. I am linking the redirects for now. But I think the case will be stronger if you create an article for the Fuzhou temple as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ten Thousand Buddhas Monastery/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look and jot notes below - I will make straightforward copyedits as I go (please revert if I accidentally change the meaning) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

...who moved to Hong Kong almost two decades before in 1933 .... from where?
Added "… from mainland China …". —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
(as detailed in the subsequent Architecture section). - you don't need this. Also needs a ref
Fixed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
in a brochure  - redundant. I'd remove it.
Removed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
as having "undermined" the building's historic "authenticity". - there will be words that can be used for "undermined" and...what is "authenticity" supposed to mean anyway. Style?
Changed to "compromised".  I think authenticity here refers to its original vibe/atmosphere, which will inevitably be lost whenever an extensive renovation takes place. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Although the temple was "partly reopened" a few months after the mudslide - can be dequoted using different words
Changed. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Casliber: Thanks for the review!  I've addressed all the comments you've made so far.  I also added some more info about the Monastery's history with my last edit to the article.  Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
1. Well written?:

Prose quality: 
Manual of Style compliance: 
2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:  (NB: Earwigs copyvio detector was negative/clear
Citations to reliable sources, where required: 
No original research: 
3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: 
Focused: 
4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias: 
5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA): 
6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  - the only issue here is about gallery use. I'm not normally keen on them, but this is a visually diverse place, and do feel that on the balance of things this adds to the article.
Overall: 

Pass or Fail:  pass. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)