re. the "while" examples fwiw, there is a case to be made for it to be fine in sentences that mention reciprocal relationships (like those here), because there's still a connotation "on the other hand" present. what's not okay, however, is using it as a one-on-one replacement for "and" (e.g., in a moves section, "earthquake targets electric-types, while heavy slam targets fairy-types"--that's only correct if the two moves are alternate options for the same slot, because that warrants an "on the one hand / on the other hand connotation", not if they're both guaranteed to be on the set). kind of a matter of where to draw the line where "on the other hand" ends and "and" begins, which isn't super set in stone, so don't let this take away anything from lemo's post @_@
some more things
"Like" and "such as" are technically not completely interchangeable, but they often do turn out to be in practice. I once made a post on it here, so read that one too please, but in short, the difference between the two is that "like" implies that the given examples are not arbitrary examples from the given category but have another characteristic that they share and that the presence of such a characteristic is considered significant / not self explanatory enough to make explicit (through the usage of "like"), whereas "such as" implies that the given examples are just that, examples.
Since that probably didn't make too much sense, let's take a look at "Water-types like Slowking and Jellicent"--you say that "like" is used for comparison, which actually is what happens here. The writer isn't referring to _all_ Water-types, but to bulky Water-types only; so, he actually means Water-types "like" Slowking and Jellicent. After all, ideally you wouldn't target, say, Samurott (or Sharpedo or Floatzel) with Toxic but rather hit those with a direct attack, so "like" is very much appropriate here. On the other hand, if the writer had been like "well yeah I mention both Slowking and Jellicent, pretty obvious that I'm talking about bulky Water-types only", then there would have been no point in making the nuance explicit and "such as" would have been fine too. So clearly the distinction is pretty subjective at times, and especially for broad categories like (haha) "Pokemon" and "teammates" it's pretty hard to come up with a case where I'd say either is wrong really.
I'm not gonna claim that I have both their nuances 100% down myself, but the notion that "list of examples -> such as" is oversimplifying and incorrect.
couple things here, first re. the like -> such as changes; while the one for the Fire-types is optional but defensible, Manectric's Fire coverage makes clear that it's not just any generic Electric-type, and I wouldn't have made the one for Flying-types either (there's a clear nuance "physical" present, and there's likely a bunch of Flying-types that do not give Steelix free setup opportunities--I don't play RU, but Sigilyph, Pelipper, and Vivillon seem good candidates).
Another thing is the usage of "amount"--you only use "amount" for unquantifiable things (if they're quantifiable, like here, use "number" instead). It's the same distinction as much / many, little / few, less / fewer etc. The amount of sand vs. the number of grains.
And minor, but if you use "since" (or "as") to mean "because", always add a comma before it. If that comma makes it feel weird (like happens to be the case in the previous quote haha), go ahead and change it to "because", because there's some weird rule that actually makes since / as incorrect in those cases.
That'll do, I recognise that this may seem a bit much now, but many of the tinier changes were good + no need to remember this all at once + always feel free to hit us up for more specific questions~
some more things
the writer did use "like" for comparison here, i reckon you just misread it but you effectively ended up swapping out "like" for "the same way" and adding "ground-types such as", the latter of which is optional but defensible, but yeah, the takeaway point is to make sure you read everything properlyLacking the offensive presence to threaten Grass-types the same way Ground-types like such as ("like" is used for comparison) Rhyperior, Flygon and Seismitoad do, (comma) is another thing to watch out for when using this Pokemon
Toxic is perhaps the most important move on Steelix's arsenal, being its main tool to punish switch-ins from Water-types like such as Slowking and Jellicent, Grass-types like such as Tangrowth, Rotom-Cut and Virizion, (comma) and somewhat patching Steelix's passivity.
"Like" and "such as" are technically not completely interchangeable, but they often do turn out to be in practice. I once made a post on it here, so read that one too please, but in short, the difference between the two is that "like" implies that the given examples are not arbitrary examples from the given category but have another characteristic that they share and that the presence of such a characteristic is considered significant / not self explanatory enough to make explicit (through the usage of "like"), whereas "such as" implies that the given examples are just that, examples.
Since that probably didn't make too much sense, let's take a look at "Water-types like Slowking and Jellicent"--you say that "like" is used for comparison, which actually is what happens here. The writer isn't referring to _all_ Water-types, but to bulky Water-types only; so, he actually means Water-types "like" Slowking and Jellicent. After all, ideally you wouldn't target, say, Samurott (or Sharpedo or Floatzel) with Toxic but rather hit those with a direct attack, so "like" is very much appropriate here. On the other hand, if the writer had been like "well yeah I mention both Slowking and Jellicent, pretty obvious that I'm talking about bulky Water-types only", then there would have been no point in making the nuance explicit and "such as" would have been fine too. So clearly the distinction is pretty subjective at times, and especially for broad categories like (haha) "Pokemon" and "teammates" it's pretty hard to come up with a case where I'd say either is wrong really.
I'm not gonna claim that I have both their nuances 100% down myself, but the notion that "list of examples -> such as" is oversimplifying and incorrect.
good call on compound adjectives being hyphenated (and on the comma splice), but "adverb in -ly + adjective" is actually an exception to that rule--pairs like that are never hyphenated.Steelix finds better use on more defensively-(hyphen)inclined teams thanks to the valuable role compression it provides,; (comma semicolon) being a Stealth Rock user able to block Volt Switch unlike other Steel-types is a huge plus.
Make sure to preserve Sturdy if the opportunity arises, (comma) against to deal with threatening Fire-types like such as Emboar and Delphox or obnoxious Electric-types like such as Jolteon and Manectric, (comma) examples of Pokemon that can be removed from play if Steelix's Sturdy remains intact. Steelix also finds a good amount of opportunities to set Stealth Rock up against Flying-types like such as Fletchinder, Braviary, and Aerodactyl and Electric-types like such as Jolteon and Magneton, but one gotta must be careful since all the aforementioned Pokemon have means to considerably wear down Steelix.
couple things here, first re. the like -> such as changes; while the one for the Fire-types is optional but defensible, Manectric's Fire coverage makes clear that it's not just any generic Electric-type, and I wouldn't have made the one for Flying-types either (there's a clear nuance "physical" present, and there's likely a bunch of Flying-types that do not give Steelix free setup opportunities--I don't play RU, but Sigilyph, Pelipper, and Vivillon seem good candidates).
Another thing is the usage of "amount"--you only use "amount" for unquantifiable things (if they're quantifiable, like here, use "number" instead). It's the same distinction as much / many, little / few, less / fewer etc. The amount of sand vs. the number of grains.
Another optional thing to be on the lookout for here, which is already signaled by you saying "some don't like". Though nitpicky, there is somewhat of an objective case to be made for "really" being inappropriate here (in that it doesn't add anything significant to the sentence), but that's something swapping it out for "very" doesn't solve, so all you're really doing here is changing the wording to suit your preference, which we want to avoid.Toxic is a really very (some don't like using "really" in this manner) safe move to utilize early to mid-game since many of Steelix's switch-ins are nailed ("nailed" implies a huge amount of damage at once to me, "crippled" might be better) by it and Steelix has the typing and power to threaten most Steel-types and Poison-types by itself.
And minor, but if you use "since" (or "as") to mean "because", always add a comma before it. If that comma makes it feel weird (like happens to be the case in the previous quote haha), go ahead and change it to "because", because there's some weird rule that actually makes since / as incorrect in those cases.
That'll do, I recognise that this may seem a bit much now, but many of the tinier changes were good + no need to remember this all at once + always feel free to hit us up for more specific questions~