Contents

Talk:Kek Lok Si

Kek Lok Si has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: April 25, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kek Lok Si article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Buddhism Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Malaysia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Kek Lok Si appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 May 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that in the Kek Lok Si temple, the pagoda combines a Chinese octagonal base with a middle tier of Thai design, and a Burmese crown reflecting both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kek Lok Si.

The article says it is the largest buddhist temple in southeast asia but I believe Angkor Wat holds that distinction.Pwordisony (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Angkor Wat is an ancient and ruined Hindu temple and not a Buddhist temple.--Nvvchar. 11:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kek Lok Si/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Muffin Wizard (talk · contribs) 11:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will do a review on this article as soon as possible, but please be patient. :)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a(prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b(MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Good.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a(reference section): b(citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   All references used are reliable sources, seems fine.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a(major aspects): b(focused):

   Good.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems neutral.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems fine, I see no edit war.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a(images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b(appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I see all images are available freely to use.

7. Overall: After a frequent more check to the article, I see there is no more problem, so I give it a passed, thanks for all your time to work on this article. :)

   Pass/Fail: