You made the right change here! As a general rule, we don't allow move names to be used as verbs (the only exception to this is "Taunted"), so it's best to phrase things as "using [move]" whenever a situation like that comes up.
The "it" in the second sentence is ambiguous here and should be specified as "Mandibuzz." The subject of the previous sentence is Chien-Pao, and "it" in the previous sentence also refers to Chien-Pao, so it isn't quite apparent that the subject of the second sentence is Mandibuzz if "it" is used.
- I suppose "both Sneasler and Great Tusk with Choice Scarf" isn't quite incorrect, but it is a less intrusive change to say "Choice Scarf Sneasler and Choice Scarf Great Tusk," since this doesn't alter the underlying structure of the phrase. In general with GP checking, our highest priority (after fixing objective errors, of course) is preserving as much of the original writer's voice as possible, which requires making the least intrusive change we can. If a fix can be made while preserving most of the original wording or structure, it is preferred over a fix that does not do so.
- Since Mandibuzz is already the subject of the previous sentence, you can use "It" instead of "Mandibuzz" as the subject of the second sentence here without having the ambiguity issue from earlier.
- When "setup" is being used as a noun or as part of a compound noun (like "setup sweeper"), we spell it as "setup" and not "set-up," so here it should say "setup sweepers" rather than "set-up sweepers." We spell it as "set-up" when it is used as an attributive adjective ("A fully set-up Pichu mows through teams with little effort") and "set up" when it is used as a verb or predicative adjective ("His Pichu was not fully set up yet").
I'll address the change from "with" to "by using" below:
It's definitely fair to say that the meaning of "with" can be ambiguous, especially in a vacuum. However, in a Pokemon context, the specific meaning can generally be easily inferred by the rest of the sentence, granted that the reader knows the basic mechanics of Pokemon battles (which we do indeed assume of our readers). In the above sentence, it's pretty clear to the informed reader that Azumarill and Scizor having Foul Play would have nothing to do with Mandibuzz's ability to check them (in fact, in standard metagames, neither Azumarill nor Scizor even learns the move). On the other hand, if we read in the "using" definition rather than the "possessing" definition of "with," it certainly makes sense that Mandibuzz's access to Foul Play would be relevant to its ability to check setup sweepers like Azumarill and Scizor. Given that one of the definitions doesn't make sense in this context, it's safe to assume that the reader would interpret it as the other definition (also, for the record, if we did indeed intend to refer to an Azumarill or Scizor that uses Foul Play, we would most often see it referred to as "Foul Play Scizor" rather than "Scizor with Foul Play").
In contexts like this, rewording or restructuring the relevant phrase would constitute a
lateral change, which is a change from one grammatically correct word or phrase to a different grammatically correct word or phrase without a specific prose justification. Lateral changes take away from the writer's voice unnecessarily, which is why we want to avoid them. To be clear, there may be some contexts in which the usage of "with" is ambiguous like you're describing here, and in those cases it should be changed (keeping in mind the principle of the least intrusive change). However, if only one of the definitions of "with" actually makes sense in the context of the sentence (which is the case here), then it should be kept so we don't make a lateral change.
- Remember that we use "opponent" to refer to the opposing human battler and "foe" to refer to the opposing Pokemon.
- In the first sentence, the examples given (Sandy Shocks and Baxcalibur) are Pokemon, so "opponents" should be "foes."
- The same applies to the second sentence, where the examples given are the Pokemon Hatterene and Flutter Mane.
- The same comment applies here about "with" - even if Hatterene had Iron Head and Flutter Mane had Sucker Punch, it would not be relevant to Kingambit's ability to eliminate them, so the "possessing" definition can't apply here.
- The structure of the second sentence with "being able" seems to imply that Kingambit's neutrality to Fairy-type moves (which is a defensive advantage) allows it to eliminate Hatterene and Flutter Mane (which is a point about its offensive prowess), but this is not quite accurate. Rather, its defensive and offensive advantages against these Fairy-types both contribute to Kingambit's impressive offensive synergy with Chien-Pao, so it's better to turn this sentence into a list to reflect that: "Kingambit has impressive offensive synergy with Chien-Pao due to its neutrality to Fairy-type moves and ability to eliminate foes like Hatterene with Iron Head and Choice Scarf Flutter Mane with Sucker Punch after Stealth Rock."
Almost perfect here - don't forget your Oxford comma!
Yes, with certain constructions the tool creates an extra space or removes a necessary space, so when that happens you just need to fix it once you copy over to the forums. You should always double-check the output from the tool before you post to make sure that everything is formatted the way you wanted. The specific case you pointed out (
(RC) as well as being. (AP)) does seem pretty normal, though.
You definitely have a strong understanding overall of what errors to look out for and can identify where the prose might be lacking! Make sure that in your future exercises, you're being very careful not to make lateral changes, and that you're making the least intrusive change possible when you do have to fix something (looking through Section 3 of the
Beginner Notes may help). Let me know through forums or Discord if you have any questions, and feel free to try out another Intermediate-level exercise when you can!
