If you want to practice editing, go find something written for a fairly narrow audience by an expert in a field other than writing. Such publications usually don't get the degree of editing you'd expect for books or magazines that sell many more copies.
Today's "needs editing" entry comes from what might be the best advanced chess instruction book since... well, maybe ever. So please understand I'm not giving How to Reassess Your Chess, 4th Ed. by Jeremy Silman a bad review. It's a terrific book for chess players. But I'd have edited it more tightly, especially in the areas that don't relate to chess.
In this excerpt from page 45, Silman talks about things we like that are bad for us:
The hot fudge sundae that makes your taste buds scream in bliss--it also carries about two million calories. My wife's favorite old (but classic!) MG sports car--it's fun to drive but tends to catch on fire from time to time for no reason in particular.
"scream in bliss" doesn't work for me. I think of bliss as a quieter state of mind than the word "screaming" evokes. I can see screaming "in joy" or "with delight," maybe, but not "in bliss." Still, I wonder why Silman's reaching for such exaggerated effect here. I think he's trying too hard.
On the other hand, the "two million calories" line doesn't bother me. I think that exaggeration works.
Now look at the last line. "tends to catch on fire" implies that the car doesn't catch on fire every time, so "from time to time" is redundant. "For no reason" is also implied to me, since no reason is stated, and "in particular" strikes me as useless in this sentence. In my opinion, every word you write makes your text either stronger or weaker. So if the words aren't making your text stronger, "weaker" is the only remaining option.
Here's my suggested revision, with help from co-publisher Bethany:
The hot fudge sundae that makes your taste buds sing carries about two million calories. My wife's favorite old (but classic!) MG sports car is fun to drive, but tends to catch on fire.
Co-publisher Bethany points out "carries" might not be the best verb for the sundae. I think it's good enough that I'd rather stick with the author's original wording, even though I agree "packs" makes more sense. On the other hand, I agreed that "scream" should be replaced with "sing." Bethany likes putting "for no reason" back in. I disagree only because in this case, I think shorter is funnier and the reader's imagination gets more involved without those three extra words.
I think our revision is less cluttered and flows better. If you've got different ideas on how to revise the original, I'd love to see them.