Talk:The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Mox Eden, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 8 April 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Untitled[edit]

What is wrong? Why won't the rest of the page show up? Is Wikipedia having difficulty with the technology? Creamy3 (talk) 23:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 12:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
5x expanded by Yoshiman6464 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 03:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • I'll take this. Nice work!
  • 5x expansion confirmed, and new enough. Adequately referenced (I presume Synopsis / Summary sections are excused from the usual DYK citation-per-paragraph rule). The main potential content problem is neutrality... for example, in Legacy, it states "Since its original release, the documentary film has been showcased in film schools worldwide," but the source is an interview with the executive producer of The Cutting Edge. Not throwing shade here, but this needs to be attributed and taken with a gallon of salt if included - interviews with creators about how important and popular their work was are routinely exaggerated, sometimes by a lot. I don't think "showcased in film schools worldwide" can be stated as a fact in the lead section, for example. I think some closer reading of the sources might help - for example, you've written "Gerald Perry of Boston Pheonix thought that Cold Mountain a mediocre film." First, it's Phoenix (I make typos too, no worries), but more importantly, that wasn't Perry's complaint reading the source - he's complaining Murch was "windy" (i.e. long-winded, i.e. too many words to say too little). The actual problem wasn't necessarily that Cold Mountain was meh, that was just an aggravating factor.
  • For the hooks... hmm, this might be a tastes thing. There's a trend by some DYK hook reviewers to favor real-world facts, but none of these seem particularly interesting to me? Lots of stuff was in high-def by 2004, any vanity producer can send transcripts to a museum, how many discs were in the Special Edition of Bullit is irrelevant and it being a DVD value addin isn't that interesting, Warner Bros. probably just wanted some free advertising by licensing out their clips, etc. Of these, I think I prefer the simple ALT3 the most, although I couldn't find direct verification on the director count - but 17 sounds fine and it's probably just in a different source. Does that work for you? Happy to take a look at another ALT if something "punchier" can be found. (And please do a pass on neutrality per above; I think we're close.) SnowFire (talk) 04:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: I fixed the neutrality issues that you pointed out in the article. I was able to find an Indian film editor who was inspired by the documentary as well as some lists. I rewrote that problematic section in the LEAD to "In later years, the documentary influenced younger international film editors and was seen as an essential documentary about filmmaking." As for ALT3, I can re-write it to this:
ALT5: ... that the 2004 documentary The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing contains interviews from dozens of film editors, including women underrepresented in the field?Source: https://archive.org/details/sim_boston-phoenix_december-10-16-2004_33_50/
I wanted to rewrtie this section because the added source mentioned the presence these editors. I also wanted to highlight female editors since, per the documentary, they were underrepresented. I also wanted to bring it up since the most recent Oscar-winning editor was a woman named Jennifer Lame. I even changed the source to a review from Boston Pheonix since it mentions female representation. With that in mind, I don't think a specific number is too important here. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshiman6464: Checking in again, sorry about the delay. I wrote the above without knowing you'd already nominated it for GAN and requested a copy-edit, and figured the article might not be stable. I guess the copy-edit has finished up by now.
I will say that I still don't think this is GA level, as a heads-up. Luckily this is DYKN, not GAN, and I think it's passable enough for that. My remaining neutrality complaint is the new line in the lede: "In later years, the documentary influenced younger international film editors and was seen as an essential documentary about filmmaking." I think you're taking "must-watch" a little too seriously in these lists... every film influences people, and being on some lists of praised films isn't actually that unusual either. Calling something an essential documentary is a very strong claim in Wiki-voice, and I don't believe it's met here. That said, it's one line, and happy to fix that myself without disqualifying myself as a reviewer if you don't want to. But I'll let you try adjusting it yourself first if you want.
I renamed your hook suggestion ALT5. And sure, looks good to me. ALT3 is also approved. (The main potential complaint about ALT5 might be that "underrepresented" is a bit of a value judgment that there is a "correct" amount of female representation, but I think the idea is clear enough.)
SnowFire (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: You can make all the little changes that are necessary to make this article better. One problem with solo editing is that - I get too attached to the subject. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 01:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Yoshiman6464 (talk · contribs) 03:19, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@Yoshiman6464: I'm currently reviewing another GAR, but I would still like to take this one for a review as well. Just please put this page into your watchlist while I finish that. In the meantime, here are some preliminary notes to get you started:

  • The reception section could use some thematic organization for cohesion, and perhaps some quotes can even be paraphrased; as such, WP:RECEPTION offers great tips and examples on how to achieve this. Also, make sure you've read the reviews so you can figure out the tenets or what critics generally have picked up on; don't just simply write stuff like Jay Bobbin of Zap2it rated the film 3/4 stars, especially if the critic doesn't expound on it. I expect to see the same result as those in the examples in the guideline. Moreover, unlike video game articles, film articles don't actually require a table listing scores a film received from critics, everything has to be discussed in the prose.
  • Some minor corrections in the infobox entries: Nic. tenBroek should be corrected as "Nic TenBroek", running time is 97 mins, Star Encore is the only distributor, and TCEP production is the only production company (Source: Variety review)
  • As of April 2024, the documentary never received a stand-alone Blu-ray release. This implies (in Wikipedia's voice, no less) that the documentary ought to be released on Blu-ray soon. In any case, we may as well get rid of it for the time being if an obligatory Blu-ray release remains to be seen.
  • Speaking of which, Blu-ray.com is not a reliable source, as per WP:RSP/BLURAY; however, DVD Talk is, and they have a review of the movie: https://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/review/17781

I'll come back to you as soon as I finish the other GAR. Thank you for your patience. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 15:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Thank you so much for that review. I have a question, Blu-Ray also includes reviews from its site. Should I remove that review as well? Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And adding to that review, the composer actually spells his name like that, per Nic. tenBroek's official website. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 16:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, just to play it safe, I Replaced Blu-ray.com with High-Def Digest, which also had a review and a release date for Bullitt. I also reorganized the reviews (per the notes). Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚

Review[edit]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. The prose suffers from a little too many issues with grammar and sentence flow. Here are some I found:
  • The film brings up many topics. These topics include the collaborative nature of filmmaking, female representation in the editing field, and emerging technologies of the 21st century., which can be merged into one simple sentence, like: The film brings up topics including the collaborative nature of filmmaking, female representation in the editing field, and emerging technologies of the 21st century.
  • The film was produced in response to the 1992 documentary film Visions of Light and the lack of good documentaries on film editors. I would revise this into The film was produced in response to the 1992 documentary film on cinematography, Visions of Light, and the lack of good documentaries on film editors.
  • Wendy Apple and her executive producer Alan Heim negotiated a deal with Warner Bros. to license nearly 300 film clips for free. I would refer to Wendy just by her surname from this point forward, and put commas between Alan Heim. And since the deal took of, proper verb phrase should be "struck a deal"
  • The documentary was also filmed all over California, featuring interviews from dozens of film editors, as well as directors, actors, and producers. I would remove "also" and comma preceding "as well as"
  • The documentary would later be showcased to film schools worldwide and was featured in the educational section of American Cinema Editors's official website. Past tense only
  • The Cutting Edge premiered at the Hollywood Film Festival during the first night of the festival on October 12, 2004. I would revise this into, The Cutting Edge premiered as the Hollywood Film Festival's opening film, on the night of October 12, 2004.
  • Paneleists for the museum screening included director Wendy Apple with editors Carol Littleton, Craig McKay, Thelma Schoonmaker, and Tim Tobin. Spelling error
Reception

Your revisions on the reception is, to put it mildly, a hasty one. Firstly, while I appreciate you signposting each paragraph with a topic sentence, each must also be supported with a citation to a reliable source that explicitly backs up the claim; otherwise, you have an original research. Secondly, make sure each paragraph supports the argument the topic sentence is making. For example, if you say that The film was well received for its choice of interviewers. then the paragraph must make a cohesive argument about that alone; don't disrupt the sentence flow by adding that He also notes that it is the only high-definition bonus feature included in the Bullitt Blu-ray. or Jim Hemphill of American Cinematographer wrote that the documentary is "an insightful look at the art of editing". To that end, I suggest that you take another good, hard look on WP:RECEPTION, study the examples thereto and you'll understand the point of the guideline. Finally, are you sure it's the interviewers who are well received and not the interviewees? And who's Fiona Apple (In addition, Null criticized Fiona Apple's mixed choice of movies?

1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. *I think we can present the Cast section in a different way, since you're aiming for the GA status. Perhaps we can merge it into the Synopsis section, placed below it with level 3 section headers
  • Oscar-winning actress Kathy Bates narrates the documentary. While this is indeed true, the phrase is puffery
  • I was hoping you'd ditch the "Professional ratings" table in the Reception section. We don't really need that.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). *Clips are shown from many groundbreaking films with innovative editing styles within the past 100 years, ranging from Life of an American Fireman to Cold Mountain. I would copy edit this into Clips shown in the documentary were taken from feature films of the past century noted for their innovations in editing, ranging from 1903's Life of an American Fireman to 2003's Cold Mountain. for clarity and objectivity
2c. it contains no original research. See criterion 1a
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Earwig's yielded a 27% copyvio on the CineMontage ref and 23.7% on the Variety review, which, although not inherently bad, I would prefer these be significantly lowered by paraphrasing certain quotations
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. I do not normally like to fail articles off the bat, but the article needs more copy edit for grammar and sentence flow, with particular focus on the reception section. There is just too much issues on those areas for me to place it on hold. I suggest you consult the Guild of Copy Editors before you renominate at a later date. Please do not let this discourage you and keep up the hard work. Thank you. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Thank you so much for the review. Since I was the one who improved the article five-fold, there were a lot of shortcomings that you were able to find. I’ll sit on this article for a bit and work on some copy edits. In the future, I’ll consult with the other wikipedians before I nominate any more articles. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 17:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Cutting_Edge:_The_Magic_of_Movie_Editing&oldid=1221442669"