I'm going to chime in with more info regarding Eien's above post so you know the full scope of why that was written. I'm going to be as forthright and blunt as possible.
Facebook spotlights are incredibly fast to GP check. 90% of the time they are GP checked within the hour or within a few hours after they are posted in the queue. Maybe at
max 24 hours. Now, I attempted to check this the day it was put in queue and it was me who brought attention to it first. Apparently QC said that the spotlight was fine, but the GP team held off on it. Another GPer tried to check it a few
weeks later and it was the same problem. Now just the other day
Eien brought attention to this, making it the third time. So, QC said it was fine yet this spotlight has been called out three times; spotlights are checked within the day yet this one
hasn't been checked for a month and a half. Clearly, there is simply a problem.
I don't care about the plagiarism thing personally. Even if you did plagiarize, that wasn't the main issue at least at first. I want to expand on Eien's first point. The Facebook Spotlight introduction thread says the following:
No vomiting of dex info. Do not go through every move in the set and say what it hits super effectively or what stat it boosts by two stages. Do not explain that 252 Attack EVs maximize Attack or that Life Orb has recoil. Again, we are a competitive strategy site. You should be talking about the set's purpose in the current metagame, why it's good in the current metagame, how one of its moves can get a surprise OHKO on some common foe, what it can switch into, what it can outspeed, what teammates it can support, and so on
I fail to see how this spotlight
isn't vomiting dex info. It's literally just a Moves section of an analysis. "Earthquake allows it to heavily damage any Pokemon that does not resist it". Naturally. "Rock Slide allows it to hit Pokemon that are immune to Earthquake like Vullaby". Rock Slide from
any Pokemon will hit things immune to Earthquake. Even your better sentences like "Trapinch is a niche trapper in LC with being able to trap Pokemon the team struggles with" are so general; if you essentially replace the word "trap" with "threaten" then that sentence works with any Pokemon in the tier.
Your info doesn't explain "Why Trapinch?" like Facebook spotlights should be doing. You don't talk about the details of Trapinch's niche and why it's good. You don't talk about why you would use Trapinch or how to use it. You don't mention what Pokemon Trapinch can trap that Diglett can't. Right now your spotlight is just a Moves section. I can write a moves section about Oddish the same way you did, and I highly doubt an unranked Pokemon would get a spotlight. Simply put: right now, your writing doesn't justify a Facebook spotlight for Trapinch.
Another thing is that you misunderstood one of the crucial QC inputs:
Magma said:
It has more Attack and bulk then the other Arena Trapper Diglett.
Coconut said:
Magma said:
However, it has more Attack and bulk then the other Arena Trapper Diglett.
This is not what QC meant. They did not mean that you should put "However" in front of your sentence (which grammatically doesn't really make sense based on the sentences). They meant that you should mention the
negatives about Trapinch. You just included things Trapinch has that are better than Diglett, making it sound like Trapinch objectively is better than Diglett (which it's not). You were supposed to mention negatives like Trapinch's low Speed or fewer utility options when compared to Diglett, which would have been good information for a spotlight to have in the first place.
Vomiting out only dex info is emphasized as not acceptable by Facebook spotlight standards, and doing just that when writing generalized statements will make you susceptible to getting called out for plagiarism, which staff takes very seriously. This should make it more clear why it has been asked for a rejection by the GP team. Thank you for understanding.
