# Talk:Kikwit

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kikwit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 02:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: MisawaSakura (talk · contribs) 23:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Initial comments:
Intro - "an outbreak" is red. Please unlink it or start the target article
Note: notes to a foreign language wiki with no en wiki link are ok
Intro - "poor infrastructure and lacks and electrical grid" should be "poor infrastructure and lacks an electrical grid." (second and should be an)
History - "Luluabourg Conference" is red, same issue
History - "1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak" is red, same issue
History - "governor of Kwilu" is red, same issue
History - "The city was racially segregated into the cité européenne and the cité indigène" -- anything on when this segregation policy ended?
Governance - "Établissement de Garde et d'Education de l'Etat" is red, same issue
Governance - "Serge Makongo" is red, same issue
Images are all free, no problems
Refs are good and consistently formatted.
MisawaSakura (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I will keep the red links per WP:REDYES, as all of these subjects are probably notable enough to have articles. As for the racial segregation, I have not seen any sources mentioning when the policy ended. (I would guess that the policy may never have been officially terminated, and would simply have become obsolete when Europeans left the city.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I didn't know about red eyes. Personally I don't agree with it, but since it's a policy, ok, don't worry about them. Really nice submission. Congrats! MisawaSakura (talk) 11:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
@MisawaSakura: Thanks for considering this a good article, but your review is incomplete. Per WP:GAN/I#R3, a GA review must include a spotcheck of sources, in order to determine that the article is accurate to sources and that it does not contain copyright violations. You should do this before passing this article as GA. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:25, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I did that where I posted "refs are good", guess I should have been more explicit. However I forgot to run it through Earwig's tool, so I just ran that and it came back "Violation unlikely". MisawaSakura (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey vigilantcosmicpenguin, citation 125 in the current revision has some kind of cite error I can't figure out how to fix. You may want to take a look at it. Excellent work on this article, as always! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out. (The error was that there was a space in the URL.) — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)