Cold07
Something like "using Defog to remove entry hazards" would've been best, as then you can retain the author's original voice of "to prevent it from being worn down by them." There's also a case of repetition towards the end, where "hazards" is used in repetition rather than being called back upon. Also, entry hazards doesn't need the hyphen.
You've been making a lot of progress with your GP, but I do have some concerns about how you're processing feedback. Overall, good work. Feel free to DM me or any of the active GP team if you have questions. I think it's really important to ask if you're confused on something.
Unnecessary changes - I think this flies over a lot of people's heads, but just because it sounds better, doesn't mean it is better. When it just sounds better to you, you're overwriting the author's voice; I'll highlight a few examples of this that you accidentally do during your check. Remember that any information in the check has already been run through QC, so you won't be adding any content during your GP check. Personally, when you're uncertain on whether to add or change content, like with the Defog sentence, I'd recommend just posting the sentence in the questions channel in the GP Discord. It doesn't matter if it's just a workshop line, as you'd still be learning! Knowing when one of my changes was questionable and asking for clarification on it contributed the most to me becoming a GPer, and with you being pretty active on the Discord, I'm sure it'll be helpful for you, too.
For this check in particular: Good job, you caught essentially all of the actually Pokemon-related changes, now you need to steer more focus towards standard grammar like "and vs. or" as well as commas. I'm sure autumn has told you this already, but when you're new to GP, I can't stress how useful the list at the bottom of the GP Beginner notes document is. Had you CTRL + F'd and parsed through everything on that list one by one, even though the check may have taken five or so more minutes, I believe that you'd have caught a few more errors. As you continue to do checks and cross-reference with that list, eventually it'll kinda just sink into your head when you see stuff that needs changes.
Unnecessary changes - I think this flies over a lot of people's heads, but just because it sounds better, doesn't mean it is better. When it just sounds better to you, you're overwriting the author's voice; I'll highlight a few examples of this that you accidentally do during your check. Remember that any information in the check has already been run through QC, so you won't be adding any content during your GP check. Personally, when you're uncertain on whether to add or change content, like with the Defog sentence, I'd recommend just posting the sentence in the questions channel in the GP Discord. It doesn't matter if it's just a workshop line, as you'd still be learning! Knowing when one of my changes was questionable and asking for clarification on it contributed the most to me becoming a GPer, and with you being pretty active on the Discord, I'm sure it'll be helpful for you, too.
For this check in particular: Good job, you caught essentially all of the actually Pokemon-related changes, now you need to steer more focus towards standard grammar like "and vs. or" as well as commas. I'm sure autumn has told you this already, but when you're new to GP, I can't stress how useful the list at the bottom of the GP Beginner notes document is. Had you CTRL + F'd and parsed through everything on that list one by one, even though the check may have taken five or so more minutes, I believe that you'd have caught a few more errors. As you continue to do checks and cross-reference with that list, eventually it'll kinda just sink into your head when you see stuff that needs changes.
As mentioned in the READ ME section (if you haven't read it, please do so), this is an instance of you changing a lot of the sentence when it wasn't quite necessary. While using "defogging" itself as a verb isn't right, how you changed the sentence wasn't quite the best method either.
Something like "using Defog to remove entry hazards" would've been best, as then you can retain the author's original voice of "to prevent it from being worn down by them." There's also a case of repetition towards the end, where "hazards" is used in repetition rather than being called back upon. Also, entry hazards doesn't need the hyphen.
I'd have understood this change if you had made my prior change (defogging -> using Defog), as then "using" would be in repetition with the sentence right before it. However, this is a lateral change in your check. There's no difference between swapping out using for with; this is the kind of "This looks wrong, but I'm not quite sure what to do-" type change that I'd recommend asking about in the questions channel of the GP Discord.
There's no point in adding "also" here. In fact, this is introducing repetition, as the prior sentence has an immediate opening of "(subject) also," which is naturally something we don't want to do in GP. The addition of the semicolon is also unnecessary, as you've changed the meaning of the sentence. As mentioned in the Beginner Doc, when "as well as" is used with a comma before it, it is introducing an aside to the main point. The main point of the sentence is that Mandibuzz is a good Fighting-type answer, with the "checking setup sweepers" part being secondary. Additionally, I believe autumn and I have mentioned this before, but "switch in" is being used as a noun here, so you should hyphenate it. "Mandibuzz switches in" isn't a noun; it's a verb, so it wouldn't need to be hyphenated. However, "Mandibuzz is a great switch-in," uses "switch-in" as a singular noun, so it needs to be hyphenated. Whenever you see "switch in" in an analysis, I recommend paying special attention to it; I'll go over "or vs. and" in more detail below, as you also seem to struggle with that a lot. Also, "being capable of" is fluff, as it doesn't add anything to the sentence; thus, you can remove this. In general, any segment with "being" in it is fluff.
You almost! Caught everything. Once again, you see an "or" here. Whenever you see an "or" in a list, always question the hell out of it. What is it referring to? Here, it's referring to "foes," which is plural. Thus, "or" should be removed in favor of "and."
You caught the Scarf error in a prior sentence, but not here. When you see an error like this, I recommend doing a quick CTRL + F and searching for the word, just in case there may be repeat instances. Additionally, you are adding "OHKOing" here, which changes the meaning of the sentence, something that GP really doesn't want to do. This is a case where I'd have asked the rest of the GP team in the questions channel. Instead, you should have removed the comma between "Iron Head" and "and," in order to complete what "foes" is trying to reference: Hatterene AND Flutter Mane. Additionally, adding chip damage was unnecessary. This is something that tends to be up to the writer, so I understand the confusion. If you see a lone "rocks" or "Rocks," correct it to Stealth Rock. If you see "Stealth Rock chip," then that's when you can correct it to "Stealth Rock chip damage." This is because "after Stealth Rock" already implies the foe took damage. I would personally use "attacks" over "moves" here as well. Also, "being able to" is fluff, as it doesn't add anything to the sentence. Thus, you can remove this and just turn the verb (in this case, eliminate) into a gerund.
One complaint here: repetition. The writer used this exact "In return, x [verb]" structure two sentences ago, which is jarringly soon. This is an instance where you can make a bit of a larger change to resolve repetition, like "Chien-Pao reciprocates by hitting threats". However, you did a very good job here, catching the capitalized Gliscor title, DD Dragonite, and the Landorus-Therian form being misused.