Albert Barillé (Original version was confusing. I don't know if I copyedited it right.) Rintrah 08:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC) - It seems okay to me, although the word usage seems a little peculiar. I'm looking into the quote, though. Trusilver19:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zoroaster (It's given me a literal headache. Since this one is marked to go into the print Wikipedia, it really should be double-checked.) IrisWings 07:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Checked. It is well written. You did a good job. Rintrah08:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mythology This was a major rework - please review JAXHERE | Talk 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC); I cleaned up a bit more. Maybe one more person wants to take a look? IrisWings 21:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC) I took one last shot at it, I think it's pretty good. Trusilver05:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica's Law - Someone take a look at the 'criticism' section. I think I have cleaned it up pretty good, but I would like a second opinion. Trusilver 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Second opinion: you cleaned it up well. The article is successfully copyedited. Rintrah18:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change agent. This article seems rather silly, and I am not sure if I have made it express the original authors ideas. Rintrah 14:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC) The topic of this article seems like rubbish, but your version is more intelligible than any previous one. :P IrisWings08:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hindu philosophy Can someone please give this article the once-over for spelling and grammar? I think I've pretty much taken care of the rest of it.SFinside 14:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC) Great job on a very esoteric article. :) IrisWings20:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a bunch more work on that one. Still needs work; see article's talk page, esp. about how article says term is derogatory, then constantly uses the word as if it were neutral (imagine the article on the word "nigger" being written that way!) I've removed the WikiProject tag from the top of the Talk page, since the job is definitely not done, and it looks bad to say we've edited it when it is still in this state... — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ11:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tried to clean it up a bit more. I think I've mitigated the offensiveness; the word has to be used a few times in the article for clarity, but I got rid of the rest. IrisWings04:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems OK now although there is still lots of room for content improvement. "Coolie" is commonly used in scholarly historical articles; it's only offensive when used for people today, and is in common use in India as shown by the links. --Espoo17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Balikpapan. I have done most of the article, but there are some sections I don't know how to edit: the second paragraph of Airport is confusing, and Kariangau Industrial Zones has content which is either poorly written or shouldn't be there at all. Rintrah23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected a lot of language problems and done some copyediting and deleting of illogical parts, but it's still a nightmare because most of what it contains is unsourced and much of it is still unclear. I'm tempted to add {{RoughTranslation|Indonesian}} because there is no way of knowing what some parts mean without understanding the original that it was obviously translated from, http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kota_Balikpapan. I made a request for help at the Indonesian talk page. --Espoo02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
