Template:Did you know nominations/The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

DYK toolbox

The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing

(
)
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).

  • 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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/The_Cutting_Edge:_The_Magic_of_Movie_Editing&oldid=1219882954"