betathunder
In this case it's harder to pick up on because the 'Ghost-types like Chandelure' list only has Chandelure in it; if it was'Ghost-types like Chandelure and Gengar as well as Bronzong' it would be a bit easier, but the principle is the same. Ghost-types like Chandelure is one 'list', and 'Bronzong' is the other one.
With your change, the nuance has been altered a bit. The original had Bronzong as a specific example (there's no 'Pokemon like Bronzong', it's just Bronzong on its own). However, the edit now has 'problematic walls like Bronzong', which implies that Bronzong is just an example of the problematic walls category.
There's a difference between 'Pokemon like x' phrasing and just saying 'x'. For example, if you said 'Pokemon like Gholdengo can block Defog with Good as Gold', it would make no sense because there's no other Pokemon like that.
The first mention of 'hazards' in each paragraph needs to be written out in full as 'entry hazards', but after hat just saying hazards on its own is fine.
In this case, you don't know if respectively is true, as like you said, Registeel can do 2/3, Gligar can do 2/3, Sylveon can do 2/3. Adding the respectively would be a content change, which is a big no for GP.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zdePdwuZLzDPcKv7v_t-V3cOIdmG5kdzoN-F-ry2uWI/edit?tab=t.0
There should be a hyphen between hazard-weak; this is a compound adjective where both 'hazard' and 'weak' combine to describe the Pokemon.letting them run many powerful entry hazard weak Pokemon
The original version shouldn't read like Bronzon is a Ghost-type because using 'as well as' more directly separates examples. If you had a sentence like 'It hits Fire-types like Charizard and Moltres as well as Pikachu', the purpose of the 'as well as' is to separate the first list from the second one so it doesn't reas as 'Fire-types like Charizard, Moltres, and Pikachu'.Knock Off lets Cinccino hitGhost TypesGhost-types like Chandelure, as well asBronzong, an otherwise problematic wallother problematic walls such as Bronzong. (Changed order; original version reads like Bronzong is a Ghost type. Addition of other Ghost-types or problematic walls may strengthen this sentence)
In this case it's harder to pick up on because the 'Ghost-types like Chandelure' list only has Chandelure in it; if it was'Ghost-types like Chandelure and Gengar as well as Bronzong' it would be a bit easier, but the principle is the same. Ghost-types like Chandelure is one 'list', and 'Bronzong' is the other one.
With your change, the nuance has been altered a bit. The original had Bronzong as a specific example (there's no 'Pokemon like Bronzong', it's just Bronzong on its own). However, the edit now has 'problematic walls like Bronzong', which implies that Bronzong is just an example of the problematic walls category.
There's a difference between 'Pokemon like x' phrasing and just saying 'x'. For example, if you said 'Pokemon like Gholdengo can block Defog with Good as Gold', it would make no sense because there's no other Pokemon like that.
There's also a small type on Cinccino's name here.Knock Off lets Cinccino
The Cinccino name typo is also here - as a tip, if a writer makes an error more than once, using ctrl + f can help make sure you've covered them all.Encore allows Cincinno to capitalize on passive foes thatsetupset up hazards, boost their stats, or healupsuch as Gligar, Registeel, and Sylveon.
The first mention of 'hazards' in each paragraph needs to be written out in full as 'entry hazards', but after hat just saying hazards on its own is fine.
The word ‘however' is not a connective in the same way that 'and' 'but' 'or' are, so it can't be used to connect two independent clauses; this creates a comma splice. To fix this, you can use a semicolon in place of a comma (then add a comma after however), or you can use a period and start a new sentence. Only connectives can be used to connect clauses in this way, so other words like 'therefore' 'additionally' also follow this rule.Teammates like Diancie, Toxtricity, (AC) and Scyther can work alongside Cinccino to overwhelm shared Steel-type checks like Copperajah and Bronzong, howeverFiresFire- andFightingsFighting-types such as Chandelure,Tauros-Paldea-AquaPaldean Tauros-W, and Heracross that easily beat these same Steel-types work as well.
Respectively has a very specific usage; it means that item 1 in list 1 only applies to item 1 in list 2, item 2 in list 1 only applies to item 2 in list 2, etc. There has to be the same number of items in each list for it to work, and there can't be something that applies to multiple items in the other list.Considered adding ‘respectively’ after the ‘Gligar, Registeel, Sylveon’ line, since technically Registeel can set up hazards and Sylveon can boost its stats. However, I think the overall point of the sentence is that Cinccino can punish passivity regardless of who uses it, so I decided to not suggest that change.
In this case, you don't know if respectively is true, as like you said, Registeel can do 2/3, Gligar can do 2/3, Sylveon can do 2/3. Adding the respectively would be a content change, which is a big no for GP.
Yes, that suggestion is a good example of a lateral change. A lateral change is where you go from one correct thing -> a second correct thing without any real prose justification other than 'it sounds better to me'. If you can't pinpoint an issue (either a grammar error or a prose issue like clarity / repetition / fluff / redundancy etc), then you're changing the voice of the writer for no material gain.Considered changing '...beat these same Steel-types work as well' to '...beat these same Steel-types also works', but upon reflection this felt like a more personal change than anything.
There are other reasons that you'd make changes to the writing, and you can find some explanations on my beginner notes document in the prose errors section and in the prose guide.For now I plan to treat these situations as "do not make a change unless it is absolutely necessary for clarity," but I would still appreciate feedback on whether or not those changes would be approved.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zdePdwuZLzDPcKv7v_t-V3cOIdmG5kdzoN-F-ry2uWI/edit?tab=t.0
mari's guide to subjective changes
One of the trickier parts of grammar and prose is the prose part of the process. While grammar for the most part deals with more objective changes that can be taught pretty straightforwardly, the prose part deals with larger sentence structure matters and often has overlap with the more subjective part of the process. This means that you're relying a bit more on instinct here and need to play more by broad guidelines than hard rules; however, there are a few ways in which we can make things clearer.
Overall, the main thing to keep in mind is...
One of the trickier parts of grammar and prose is the prose part of the process. While grammar for the most part deals with more objective changes that can be taught pretty straightforwardly, the prose part deals with larger sentence structure matters and often has overlap with the more subjective part of the process. This means that you're relying a bit more on instinct here and need to play more by broad guidelines than hard rules; however, there are a few ways in which we can make things clearer.
Overall, the main thing to keep in mind is...