Guide to the GP Process for Aspiring GPers [new amcheckers please read!]

Status
Not open for further replies.

P Squared

a great unrecorded history
is a Site Content Manageris a Community Contributoris a Top Contributoris a Top Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Senior Staff Member Alumnusis a Top Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
contrib_gp.png

Guide to the GP Process

Directory
Overview
Info for Aspiring GPers

Common Grammar Errors and How to Fix Them
Guide to Prose and Subjective Changes
What is GP?
GP, or Grammar-Prose, is the process in which analyses and articles published on Smogon are proofread. Smogon holds itself to a high standard and thus the things published onsite should avoid spelling and grammatical errors. Members of the GP team find and fix these errors, help paragraphs flow better, remove unnecessary fluff, catch formatting errors, and in general make things easier to understand! Here is an example of a typical GP check.

Where is GP needed?
The main areas GP is needed are in C&C (where analyses are written) and The Flying Press (where articles are written). Note that grammar standards are a little different between these two. Also, since The Flying Press's writing subforum is not public, those without access can only do GP checks in the C&C section.

Both articles and analyses go through the GP stage, meaning they need to receive (usually) two official GP checks to be finished and published. There are exceptions; for example, if an analysis or article needs to be published as soon as possible, it is fine to only get one GP check, and GP members have discretion to make the call that a second check is unnecessary. Notably, this is the current policy for the Sun & Moon preview analyses.

Resources
Grammar-Prose Team Queue
Spelling and Grammar Standards
GP Tutoring
GP Discord server
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Aspiring GPer's Guide to the GP Process

What is an amchecker? How is it different from a GPer?

The GP team consists of users who are approved to give official GP checks. Users who are not on the GP team but still post GP checks are called amateur checkers, or amcheckers, and their checks are called amchecks. Amchecks are not official and do not have to be implemented by writers, though they often make good changes and provide valuable insight! In fact, if a GP member believes an amcheck is good enough, they can stamp it so that it does count as an official check.

Official GPers are permitted to use placeholders (to avoid multiple GPers working on something at once); amcheckers cannot. GPers also post in the Grammar-Prose Team Queue after finishing a check; amcheckers do not do this. Finally, amchecks are not allowed on social media spotlights, but they are allowed on anything else.

How do I get started doing GP checks?
Find an analysis that is in the GP stage and is ready for a GP check. Note that if another GP check has been posted by someone else and has not yet been implemented by the writer, you should wait to do an amcheck until after the GP check has been implemented.

From there, click Reply on the OP to quote the post and begin making corrections! It is most common to use blue for additions, red for removals, and some other color for comments.

If you are finding formatting to be tedious, here are some tools courtesy of past GP members that you can use to expedite the process:

https://zrp200.github.io/cc-diff/
Thread https://www.smogon.com/forums/threa...-generate-qc-and-gp-checks-v0-3-5-19.3743702/

These steps will allow you to paste in text without any spacing issues coming up:
1735026747972.png

1735026767098.png
http://sandshrewz.github.io/gpdiff

However, it seems most GPers manually format their posts.

How can I get better at GPing?
While you probably have an at least decent grasp of English grammar, you may be unfamiliar with Smogon-specific grammar. Luckily, our terminology is catalogued in the Spelling and Grammar Standards. If you're unsure of the spelling, capitalization, spacing, etc of any term, this is the place you should look first! When I was an amchecker, whenever I came across something like "revenge-killer", "switchin", or "Ghost type moves", I would check the standards to see if that was the correct way to format those terms.

Of course, it is also critical to have a strong grasp of English grammar. Official GP members are familiar with comma and semicolon rules, parallelism, and common mistakes like dangling modifiers. If these are unfamiliar to you, don't be intimidated! Practice helps, and many GP members are willing to help you out if you have any questions. Feel free to join our Discord server and ask us questions!

Other resources for improving at GP include:
GP Workshop: The OP contains some sample paragraphs that you can try GPing. Post your amcheck in the thread and a GP member will leave some feedback!
GP Tutoring: After you have done a few amchecks, you can sign up to be assigned a tutor from the GP team who will go through your checks and teach you everything you'll need to know.
#amchannel in the GP Discord server: We have a channel for amcheckers to ask for feedback in our server. GPers will be happy to provide you with feedback here if you like your checks in the channel. You can do to our reaction-roles channel and assign yourself the role to gain access.
Spot the Error: This is a casual game we play in the GP Discord server. P Squared posts screenshots of text with errors, and anyone can PM them with what they think the errors are and how to fix them. Whoever gets the most points after a round of 10 screenshots wins a temporary custom role color in the server! This is a fun, casual way to practice your GP skills and possibly get a reward.

Don't be afraid to bump the GP Workshop thread even if no one has posted there in a while!

I was working on an amcheck but another amchecker or GPer posted before I finished. What do I do?
If you're almost done but another amchecker snipes you, go ahead and finish up and post yours. The slight inconvenience of having to look at two amchecks doesn't outweigh the loss of having two more eyes look at an analysis or just having all your hard work go to waste.
If a GPer posts a placeholder but you're almost done with your amcheck, it won't hurt to PM them asking if you can finish and post yours. They usually won't mind! In general, just use good judgment and you'll be fine.

In any case, feel free to finish your check and send it to your tutor or ask a GPer to look at it! Even if you don't get to post it in the actual analysis's thread, it's good to get feedback.

How do I apply to the GP team?
Once you're ready, you can send a PM to the current GP leaders (deetah, Lumari, and Rabia) with a list of some recent grammar checks that you've done (preferably stamped, but this is not a hard requirement). We don't require a specific number, but for the sake of providing them with enough material to form a solid impression, make sure you're sending in at least 6 sets. The leaders will then review your application and determine if you're ready to join the team! Please do understand that the GP leaders, like anyone else, have fairly busy lives outside of Smogon and that applications require some discussion among them to finalize, and give them time to respond; overall they try to get back to you within 2 weeks. If they are taking a while, though, don't be scared to bump the PM or remind them elsewhere; just don't do this every couple of days.

Once you've sent in your application, a few things could happen.
  • You get accepted! In that case, you will be added to the list of GPers in the GP Queue and can now post official checks, post placeholders, stamp amchecks, etc. Congrats!
  • The leaders send you some feedback and/or a test analysis. In this case, the leaders may be on the fence and need some more information before they can make a decision.
  • Your application is rejected. The leaders will give you feedback on areas where you can improve, and you can continue to do amchecks until you are ready to apply again.
Don't be disheartened if you don't make it to the GP team on your first try! Many official GPers had to apply a couple times before being accepted. It is especially difficult to strike a balance between making the required corrections and changing too much; this is the most common reason applications are rejected. While it is the job of GPers to reword and rephrase where necessary for clarity, for flow, or to fix grammatical errors, we absolutely should not be rewriting effectively the entire thing to suit our personal tastes. Think about the reasoning behind your changes. If you don't have one other than "I personally like how it sounds better", perhaps reconsider changing it. However, this does not mean GPers are only allowed to make mechanical changes like fixing spelling and punctuation. "Non-mechanical" changes are totally fine as long as you can defend your reasoning for them. Here are some examples of bad reasoning vs good reasoning if this is unclear:

Bad:
Since Cascoon is easily worn down by entry hazards, a A Defogger such as Finneon is a useful teammate, since Cascoon is easily worn down by entry hazards. (I don't like starting sentences with "since")
Good:
Since Cascoon is easily worn down by entry hazards, a A Defogger such as Finneon is a useful teammate, since Cascoon is easily worn down by entry hazards. (the past few sentences have the same structure of "Since Cascoon ___, ___ is a good teammate", so rephrase this to avoid repetition)
At the end of the day, an applicant who occasionally misses grammar errors is much more likely to be accepted than an applicant who makes unnecessary changes with shaky reasoning. Errors missed in a first GP check can be caught by the second GP check or even after the analysis or article has been published. However, someone who makes unnecessary changes may not understand the purpose of GP and, at worst, may change something that was correct to something that is not correct--the opposite of what we want.

Anything else I need to know?
Do not actively discourage writers from implementing your changes until they've been officially approved. This means including things like "don't implement this yet" in your amcheck is a bad idea. The more eyes that look over an analysis the better, and we sadly do not have the time to look over everything, potentially causing any good changes you made to go to waste. However, obviously feel free to point out to the writer that the quality of your check is not guaranteed, and naturally writers should use their good judgment when implementing amchecks.

Try to exercise some restraint tagging your GP mentor to look over every single one of your checks. Again, this is for bottleneck reasons. A note "tagging P Squared for a check" might end up discouraging other GP members from looking over your check, and your GP mentor might not have time to look it over. However, naturally you should be able to ask someone to look your stuff over, and if your GP mentor promised they'll get to it quickly, there's no problem--as long as it doesn't end up sitting.

Do not include copypastes. Official GP members shouldn't do this either (except in exceptional circumstances, like right before deadlines in Smogon's Flying Press or if the writer's computer is broken) because this discourages the writers from evaluating their changes and effectively puts GP in control of the analysis, even though GP has no authority over the content, and we're only human, meaning errors might slip through! This goes double for amchecks, because those might include subpar GP changes as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
fleur's notes
(Common Errors Writers Make and How to Fix Them)

Structure
  • Parallelism in writing: most sentence structures in the language are parallel, the most common examples of which are either... or..., neither... nor..., and not only... but also.... In all these cases, sentences have to follow a parallel structure; for example, what comes before "either" should not come after "nor", and what comes after "either" must come after "nor"—you can think of this as a mirror image. This is also true for the other sentence structures enumerated above.
    • e.g. He should either stay or go. but not He either should stay or go. — in the latter example, the word "should", coming after either, must come also after or. Another case that would be wrong is He should either stay or should go., which contains an extraneous "should".
    • These 3 structures are only highlighted because they are prone to error. However, simple "and" clauses or "both" clauses (as well as many, many other structures) also require parallel structures.
      • e.g. I like reading, swimming, and to eat. should be I like reading, swimming, and eating. because word forms should be kept constant in a parallel structure.
  • Watch out for misplaced and dangling modifiers (adjectives, adverbs, phrases, and clauses), which lead to sentences having unintended, illogical meanings.
    • Misplaced modifiers are modifiers awkwardly removed from the object they describe.
      • e.g. I bought a red kid's firetruck vs I bought a kid's red firetruck. In the first sentence, the adjective is misplaced and loses the intended meaning (a red kid?).
      • In all cases, misplaced modifiers can easily be fixed by moving the offending modifer around so that it no longer creates ambiguity.
    • Dangling modifiers occur when a modifier is associated with no target object or an unintended object. Usually, they can be found at the beginning of a sentence (more rarely at the end). This results from a missing target object (i.e. what really is being modified) and not just a misplacement in a sentence.
      • e.g. Marching down the square, the sun dazzled. Here, the phrase at the start of the sentence reads as if the sun is marching down the square because of the missing subject. Other examples include Angry, the student was thrown out of the classroom (ideally, it is not the student who is angry here).
      • Unlike misplaced modifiers, dangling modifiers require the addition of a new element; that is, the target of the modifier. In the two examples above: Marching down the square, I saw the sun dazzle ... and Angry, he threw the student out of the classroom.
    • For more information on misplaced and dangling modifiers, consult this article.
  • Be wary of run-on sentences: sentences where two independent clauses are improperly connected, usually only with a comma.
    • Writers usually write run-on sentences by using transitional expressions (e.g. therefore, however, nevertheless, thus) instead of coordinating conjunctions (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) but still link the two clauses with a comma (e.g. Walrein is bulky, however, its typing makes it susceptible to entry hazards.)
      • In this sentence, the clause coming after "however" is independent and not linked by a conjunction, making it a run-on sentence (e.g. Walrein is bulky; however, its typing makes it susceptible to entry hazards.).
        • There are a few ways of fixing this:
          • Using a semicolon (the proper punctuation mark for separation of two independent clauses): Walrein is bulky; however, its typing makes it susceptible to entry hazards.
          • Replacing the transitional expression with a suitable conjunction: Walrein is bulky, but its typing makes it susceptible to entry hazards. / Walrein is bulky, though its typing makes it susceptible to entry hazards.

Diction
  • Pay attention to whether verbs are transitive or intransitive. Transitive verbs take a direct object (e.g. I ate the bread: bread is the direct object of the verb "eat") and intransitive verbs do not take a direct object (e.g. I ate).
    • Some verbs can be both transitive and intransitive, like "eat" above. However, many other verbs can only be transitive and hence cannot take a direct object (common ones in analysis writing include "sleep", "faint", and "flinch").
      • e.g. He slept. (correct) / Spore sleeps foes (wrong). / The Pokemon fainted (correct). / Draco Meteor easily faints opposing Dragon-weak foes (wrong).
      • To correctly use intransitive verbs in a transitive fashion, use a phrase like "cause the foe to faint" or "put the foe to sleep" that uses a proper transitive verb that links to the intransitive verb intended.
  • The two words "that" and "which" are not interchangeable: "that" should only be used in a restrictive sense, while "which" should only be used in a non-restrictive sense. More simply, this means that if the sentence's meaning doesn't change with the inclusion of the that/which clause, "which" should be used. If it does, "that" should be used.
    • e.g. Pokemon that are weak to Stealth Rock, such as Kyurem-B, appreciate having spinblockers on their team. vs Ice-types, which traditionally have been neglected on defensive teams, have become more popular on stall.
      • In the first sentence, "that" specifies a specific set of Pokemon—those that are weak to Stealth Rock. This attribute is not true for all Pokemon, so the sentence's meaning changes with the inclusion of the clause, necessitating the use of "that" and not "which".
      • Conversely, in the second sentence, the assumption that is made is that all Ice-types have been neglected on defensive teams, so the sentence's meaning doesn't change without the clause. "Which" is thus the word to go for here.
  • Note that "x and y" is plural, while "x or y" is singular.
    • e.g. Ground-types such as Landorus-T and Dugtrio is correct, but Ground-types such as Landorus-T or Dugtrio is not, as "Ground-types" is plural and needs to be matched with a plural. If "x or y" is preferred by the writer, opt for A Ground-type such as Landorus-T or Dugtrio.
  • Most of the sentences we see in everyday use are in the indicative mood, which is used to expressed factual situations. Less common, however, is the English subjunctive mood, which should be used to express hypotheticals, obligations, and demands, all of which are not situations "real" in reality.
    • The subjunctive is most frequently used in that-clauses (I demand that..., it is imperative that...) where a hypothetical situation is expressed. It can also be seen in "if" clauses (if I were you..., as if it were dust...) where, again, the situation being evoked is one fully hypothetical.
    • Verbs in the subjunctive mood are written as if in the infinitive (e.g. to be; to stay), but without the "to". One exception is the past subjunctive of the verb to be, which is "were".
    • e.g. It is important that he be here. / The government demands that he not stay in the country. / If it were up to me, I would choose to leave.
    • To learn more about the subjunctive mood, click here.
  • Phrases like "as well as", "along with", and "in combination with" are not grammatically equivalent to the conjunction "and" (even if, logically, they mean the same thing). This means that "x as well as y" is singular if x is singular, even if y comprises many other plural elements.
    • e.g. Heatran, along with Charizard, Moltres, and Infernape, poses a large threat to Avalugg.
    • On this note, remember that verbs need to agree with their subjects in number—a singular subject must be followed by a singular verb and a plural object by a plural verb.
Punctuation

Commas
  • A comma should be placed before "as" and "since" if they mean "because" in a sentence. This avoids possible ambiguity between the temporal and logical senses of the former two words.
    • e.g. Abomasnow requires Rapid Spin support, as it suffers greatly from Stealth Rock and Spikes damage.
  • A comma should be placed before "while" if it is used to show contrast (see example below) but not if it is used to show that two events happen at the same time.
    • e.g. Latios is an offensively oriented Pokemon, while Latias is a defensively oriented one. vs Set up while the opponent switches out.
  • "So" should be preceded by a comma as long as it is used as a coordinating conjunction; however, a comma should not be placed before it if it means "so that" (since it then is a subordinative conjunction).
    • e.g. Sableye has an extremely low Speed stat, so it should never use a Choice Scarf. vs Sableye should use Shadow Ball so that it is not totally passive.
  • Commas should be placed after introductory phrases or words (adverbs, prepositions, dependent clauses, etc.) to avoid ambiguity.
    • e.g. After using Recover, switch out immediately. (not: After using Recover switch out immediately.)
  • Non-essential clauses (i.e. clauses without which a clause still makes sense and retains its original meaning) should be set off by a pair of commas, while essential clauses (i.e. clauses without which the sentence does not make sense) should never be set off alone by commas.
  • By extension, clauses beginning with "which" are always preceded by a comma, while clauses beginning with "that" never so are. This is a result of the above rule regarding the non-restrictive and restrictive natures of "which" and "that", respectively.
    • e.g. Pokemon, which are not real, ... and Pokemon that are resistant to Fire.
  • Coordinating conjunctions (FANBOYS: for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) should not be preceded by a comma when the clause that comes after is dependent (i.e. the clause cannot stand alone as a sentence).
    • In the same vein, when the two clauses being connected are independent, a comma must be placed before the coordinating conjunction.
    • e.g. Kingdra is a great fit on Water teams and works well on Dragon teams too (correct). / Kingdra is a great fit on Water teams, and it works well on Dragon teams too (second clause is now independent; needs comma after).
  • Smogon uses the serial/Oxford comma, meaning that lists containing more than 2 items must have commas before "and" (x, y, and z—not x, y and z). This is an exception to the above rule.
  • Commas do not always have to be placed between two or more adjectives. Adjectives that separately modify a noun but not each other (coordinate adjectives) should have commas placed between them; however, adjectives that pair with and modify each other (cumulative adjectives) should not have commas separating them.
    • If the adjectives can be separated by a conjunction or rearranged, they are likely coordinate and should be separated by a comma. If not, they likely are cumulative and should not have commas placed in between them.
Other Punctuation Marks
  • Semicolon usage: semicolons are used to join two related independent clauses together without the use of a coordinating conjunction. Otherwise, they can also be used in lists where items already contain commas—in this case, using commas to separate the items would lead to ambiguity and would not be preferred.
    • e.g. I went to Paris, France; London, England; and Lisbon, Portugal. Note the conjunction after the semicolon as in a traditional list.
  • Compound adjectives (two or more words combined to form a single adjective—e.g. well-known, world-renowned, 120-Base Power) need to be hyphenated only when they used in an attributive sense (i.e. directly tied to the noun without any linking verb in between). When they are used in a predicative sense (i.e. linked to the noun with a word like "seem", "appear", or "be"), however, they should not be hyphenated.
    • e.g. The red-hot kettle was boiling. vs Well known as it may be for its versatility, Tornadus in fact has many severe limitations.
    • Remember also that modifiers made up of an adverb and adjective are never hyphenated (a really good cat, not a really-good cat).
  • "It's" means "it is"; "its" is a possessive used for "it". If you're confused about the two, simply replace the "it's / its" with "it is" and see if the sentence it's used in still makes sense: if it does, opt for "it's", and if it doesn't, "its" is the way to go.
    • e.g. Mienshao benefits from it's high Speed stat --> Mienshao benefits from it is high Speed stat (incorrect). Hence, Mienshao benefits from its high Speed stat is correct.
  • When multiple owners are involved in a possessive (e.g. Adam and Cathy's wedding / Adam's and Cathy's weddings), the placement of the apostrophe depends on who owns what. If the multiple owners own a single item together, then the apostrophe should be placed only after the last owner. If the multiple owners each own an individual item, then an apostrophe should be placed after every individual owner.
    • Adam and Cathy's wedding hence refers to a wedding between Adam and Cathy. Adam's and Cathy's weddings refers to their separate weddings (thus the plural).
  • Truncating multiple Pokemon names with hyphens is generally encouraged (see example).
    • e.g. Arceus-Rock, -Ice, and -Bug seem to be the most neglected Arceus formes in Ubers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello! We've updated our policy on how many GP checks an analysis may need. If the GP checker believes that an analysis would not benefit from a second GP check, they are able to decide if it would be ready to be published with only their check.

look at me necrobumping a two-year-old dead thread
 
Hi, all. I posted about this in the queue thread some days ago, but I think we need a formal announcement about it so you guys can have an easy reference point that won't get lost to time.

GP Team is a bot created by Mia to help organize the GP queue thread because, to be frank, it's a task none of us GP leaders have wanted to deal with for some time! As an analysis/spotlight/article writer, here's what you need to know:

- When your writing is ready for GP checks, make sure the title is updated to include [GP x/y] (where x = the number of checks it has received and y = the number of checks it needs total) and tag the bot in the thread. After a short delay, your thread will be automatically updated into the OP of the GP queue and dumped into one of our Discord's channels.

- When you receive a check, simply tag the bot again so it can rescan your thread's title and appropriately update its queue entry! It's that simple.

- GP members: if you're finishing off an analysis, just tag the bot with a "done" message to dequeue the writing!

I hope this helps, make sure to forward this information to any relevant people :)
 
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 that subjective changes have two main goals, namely clarity and readability; if the writer has not expressed their point properly or has written it in such a way that it's hard to make out, then those are our concrete issues to fix. The trap that we don't want to fall into is so-called lateral changes, since we still want our writeups to remain our writers' own work; if your reasoning for making a change is "sounds better", then that's not good, and in general you can stick to a guideline that most of the time changing either diction or sentence structure, but not both, is enough to make the change you need. You'll need to be able to actually pinpoint issues, for which focusing on (lack of) clarity and readability should be a helpful guide.

Since I believe that these things are much more easily conveyed through practice than through theory, I'll show a few examples of what I mean.

Due to Geomancy being a two-turn move means that you must believe that using it will result in you either sweeping through your opponent's team or putting them into a position that will make it impossible for them to come back, since you'll only have one chance to setup.
Due to Because Geomancy's being a two-turn nature move means that you'll only have one chance to set up, you must believe make sure that using it will result in you Togekiss either sweeping through your opponent's team (RC) or putting them into a position that will make it impossible for them to come back, since you'll only have one chance to setup.
This sentence has pretty shaky structure as is, where the main problem is that the "only one chance to set up" point is buried all the way at the end. It works best if you go through the thought process step by step; Geomancy has two turns -> only one chance to set up -> make sure Togekiss is at least gonna leave a major mark if you click the button. Moving that point to the front to reflect this order makes the sentence much more readable. Note that it depends on context whether a change like this is actually needed; this sentence is pretty long therefore prone to drowning out its own thought process, but you could also run into a shorter sentence, which by definition are much easier to take in, and in these cases it might just be fine as is.

The other notable change has to do with a condensing of clauses; while leaving the first part along the lines of "Because Geomancy is a two-turn move", that would mean we're essentially chaining at least three partial sentences together here, and the sentence can quickly just keep rambling on. This first part actually does not convey any information beyond a simple property of Geomancy, so if we adjust the wording to, well, just make it a simple property ("Geomancy's two-turn nature"), we can easily fuse two of these partial sentences into one. Once again, this may not be needed, but if a sentence reads like your math tutor slowly talking you through a complex problem, you actually risk readers losing the point of the sentence along the way, and it's better to make it more efficient.

Since Togekiss sweeps best when it can maintain full health through Oblivion Wing, it is advised that you bring it in on free switches so that you are able to best maximize its bulk and to keep it from taking unnecessary damage.
This sentences rambles on too much, and a notable issue is that maximize its bulk and avoid unnecessary damage are pretty much the same thing in this context. Removing one of the two declutters the sentence a good amount and by extension also makes it more pleasant to read.


"Vibes"-based changes like above are genuinely a good part of what makes up subjective changes, again as long as you can properly justify them. However, we can make things a bit easier yet again by putting some common errors out there; just be wary of using these as a checklist or specific points to look out for as opposed to just certain common occurrences of "poor clarity and/or readability."

Fluff is when, in simple terms, you use too many words to get to your point, which makes it difficult for readers to get to the information they actually need. Oftentimes this takes the form of standard filler phrases like "Surf is the STAB move of choice, allowing Ludicolo to take out", where, well, we know that, since it's literally on the set, and you can just as well say "Surf allows Ludicolo to take out" or even just "Surf takes out". Other cases involve mentioning information that either is accessible elsewhere anyways or is not relevant to the piece you're writing; think going out of your way to list base stats when they're right there at the top of the Dex page anyways, or contrasting the Pokemon's performance with a previous generation when the analysis focuses on the here and now. For another example:
Pelipper is a great rain setter with its ability Drizzle to boost its allies' STAB moves and a great movepool that sets it apart from its competition Politoed, with access to utility options moves such as Wide Guard, Tailwind, and U-turn as well as perfectly accurate STAB Hurricane.
where we don't need to tell the reader what Drizzle does, and its competition with Politoed is not directly relevant to the moves section of a Pelipper writeup.

Be aware that this does *not* mean "if you can say it in fewer words then do so"; once again, we're solving problems here, not trimming down characters for the sake of it. For example, both proposed changes to the Surf sentence are valid, since neither of them really holds the text back from getting to the point, and removing the number from "Ludicolo's base 90 Special Attack can hold it back" is just nitpicking for the same reason. In general, it helps to focus on cutting down clauses or sentences rather than characters; see once again the example where we have removed the entire STAB move of choice clause and changed allowing to be the main verb.

Repetitive sentence structure can make analyses tiresome to read, which is something we don't want, since sidetracking our readers out of them means we can't teach them what we want to. Let's pick the Surf example back up here, since when we do find ourselves writing about similar subject matter a lot, we sometimes accidentally end up writing the same sentence repeatedly with just a couple variables swapped out. Specifically, it's common for writers to use "allows to" phrasing for every move and item description out there; now that is the point where you actually would cut that phrase out of some sentences and/or change it up with something else to make the read slightly more engaging. For a very standard example:
Energy Ball allows Ludicolo to hit hits Water-types such as Golduck and Gastrodon super effectively. Ice Beam allows Ludicolo to take out Dragon-types such as Garchomp and Salamence.
where the one change is enough to stop the sentences from reading like an echo of each other, and we don't actually need to change anything else when this was the only issue to resolve and both sentences checked out as is grammatically.

Run-on sentences are sentences that, well, just keep going, where the writer basically just keeps rambling on. This is bad for a few reasons; first, it makes it much harder for readers to pick up on the info they need when it's not laid out in a properly structured way, and secondly they also inherently tend to lead to fluffy writing when the writer is simply thought dumping rather than structuring and distilling their thoughts properly. You can address this by making sure every sentence focuses on conveying only a singular concept or idea. Once again, this is not a hard and fast rule, since there's no reason to fall back to elementary school level writing where we make every sentence 7 words or fewer, but it's a good guideline for keeping the amount of information in a singular sentence in check. It helps if you look at it via conjunctions, words that can connect sentences. E.g. you can use "because" to add a reason or "if" or "unless" to add a condition, which of course is totally fine; particular ones to be on the lookout for are the likes of "and" and "but", which don't do a whole lot other than simply tie two equal-level sentences together with a bit of nuance. Naturally you can use these, but if you see multiple of these in a sentence then that may be a warning flag that you can hack things up a bit more. For an example, take a look at
Gastrodon has a twofold synergy with the Pelipper / Ludicolo lead pairing, as its primary role is to switch in and quickly turn into a ferocious powerhouse thanks to Storm Drain boosts from Surf, but Pelipper in particular also provides invaluable support for it, as Gastrodon cannot function while enemy Grass-types are on the field, and Pelipper's Hurricane does a great job removing these preemptively.
which can be un-trainwrecked to
Gastrodon has a twofold synergy with the Pelipper / Ludicolo lead pairing. Its primary role is to switch in and quickly turn into a ferocious powerhouse thanks to Storm Drain boosts from Surf; however, Pelipper in particular also provides invaluable support for it, as its Hurricane does a great job preemptively removing the Grass-types that stop Gastrodon from functioning.
The actual changes made here are mostly involve hacking it up a bit so that we do a better job keeping a single idea to a single sentence, but the condensing of the mention of Grass-types might also warrant some highlighting. It's the main culprit of the original version taking an extremely step-by-step approach to the explanation, but if we relegate it to a simple aside then that does not actually make that bit any harder to understand and it stops obfuscating the more integral information.

Ambiguity deserves a mention in general, since a lot of the point of subjective changes it to clear up text where things can be misread, which of course by default is the case with this. It's difficult to provide concrete examples here since they are very much case by case and identify them as you see them with not the biggest common denominators, but pronouns are a pretty recurring thing that makes for some good examples. Take the following example:
Scizor pairs well with Gastrodon, as it handles Fire-types and provides it with an effective immunity to strong Water-type attacks.
where, well... who is "it" here? A quick and easy change that makes things much clearer would be:
Scizor pairs well with Gastrodon, as it which handles Fire-types and provides it with an effective immunity to strong Water-type attacks.
In general, the way you can approach this from a linguistic lens is, the point of pronouns overall is so that we can communicate without repeating names and proper nouns all the time. The easiest way to look at it is that a sentence puts a certain noun or concept in the reader's "focus", which in the given example would be Scizor; however, multiple cases of "it" referring to different things and things shifting in and out of focus, the initial version requires a double take that we shouldn't have to do. The change makes it so that "it" clearly refers to Scizor, as it should. Applying this the other way around, this is also the reason why sometimes you actually need to swap in pronouns to make a text read properly:
Gastrodon works great on rain teams, as Gastrodon's its Storm Drain ability takes advantage of allied Surf usage for massive power boosts.
where the initial version reads actively jarring because we're repeating a name that is already in focus. This concept may not apply super cleanly to more involved sentences and you might end up with weird sentences if you end up applying it too robotically, but hopefully it at least makes for a good guideline on how to approach these cases generally.

Keep in mind though that ambiguity-based changes are very much a case-by-case thing and that instances of "well this can technically be read wrong if you go out of your way to" should not be touched if any reasonable reader will understand them properly. The word "respectively" is a common case here; while it does have valid use cases if you can genuinely misread what goes where, most of the time it's simply intuitive and you don't actually need the word. For a rather extreme example, take "Pelipper pairs well with Ground-types and Volt Absorb users like Gastrodon and Thundurus-T, respectively", where... well I am sure the example speaks louder than any explanation I could provide.




Once again: nothing of this is an exact science, and there will be instances of you making a change to something that someone else would have left alone or vice versa where things are in a "could go either way" range of whether there are actual issues with clarity and readability. This is fine and something that's simply inherent to, well, subjective changes; all of this is simply to make sure that you find potential issues to address without going fully overboard, not to get all of our checks to look uniform.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top