Continuing the list:
Reid Forgrave in Des Moines, here, here, and here.
Mike Mooney At the Dallas Morning News, here, here and here.
Emily Richmond at the Las Vegas Sun, here, here and here.
Paul Harasim from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, here, here and here.
I can tell you from experience that one of the above writers' good work is the result of amazing editing and nothing else.
Let us know who you are and criticize directly. This is not a place for cheap shots, bro.
Every writer's best work is in some way the result of good editing, directly or indirectly.
Discuss.
Similar to my first thoughts after reading Anonymous Chris' potshot: Whose best work ISN'T done thanks to "amazing" editing? I've had some great editors -- I'd say genius editors even -- help me first at the Times Herald-Record and now here at the SPT. The longer I do this, and it hasn't been long, the more I learn: Without good editors, man oh man, good luck doing good stuff.
There has to be something there for an editor to work with before good work makes it onto the page. I know as I've tried to get started in this business some of the best experiences I've had with editors are when they've figured out what I was trying to say in the midst of all the surrounding slop. Good editors help you separate that the story line from the filler. But there has to be a story line buried somewhere in the draft or in at least in a notebook before that can happen.
I guess I just don't believe someone terrible can be made elegant without at least some talent for capturing the story somewhere.