Prefacing this by saying that I'm not going to actively enforce anything here; it's just a guideline to make the lives of everyone easier. Anyway, when it comes to am QC checks, rather than doing a full sweep of every single small detail in an analysis, you should focus on comments about the more significant meta-related changes and suggestions. It's actually not that big of a difference, since I'm just cutting out the super basic things. Feedback from the community is always going to be welcome!
I do appreciate it that people are putting in the effort to put out an am check, but what I've noticed is that they are sorta missing the mark in terms of what we're looking out for. I'm just assuming that if you're doing am checks, you're shooting to land a spot on the QC team btw. I don't want people thinking that if you don't do a thorough sweep of the analysis and comment on every single detail, it's not good enough to be posted. All I want to see is proof that you know what you're talking about instead of including stuff like adding examples (unless you have good reason for that specific example). If it's something that anyone who doesn't play the tier can easily point out, it's likely not a huge deal, with the exception being factually wrong info like "x does this amount to said check" or "x has a 10% of this happening".
As it stands, am checks sometimes confuse writers on whether they should actually wait or whether implementing them completely would save QC some time. It's a mixed bag, since a good check would do the latter, while a bad one would include a ton of unnecessary details. Including just the significant changes helps QC filter through to see how much you really know about the metagame. Most of the proof of that should come from other areas of the site anyway.
tl;dr don't make am QC checks longer than they need to be. focus on the main (meta-related) points.
Hmu on discord if anything is unclear!
I do appreciate it that people are putting in the effort to put out an am check, but what I've noticed is that they are sorta missing the mark in terms of what we're looking out for. I'm just assuming that if you're doing am checks, you're shooting to land a spot on the QC team btw. I don't want people thinking that if you don't do a thorough sweep of the analysis and comment on every single detail, it's not good enough to be posted. All I want to see is proof that you know what you're talking about instead of including stuff like adding examples (unless you have good reason for that specific example). If it's something that anyone who doesn't play the tier can easily point out, it's likely not a huge deal, with the exception being factually wrong info like "x does this amount to said check" or "x has a 10% of this happening".
- In overview: comments on the Pokemon's place in the meta, competition with others, how it performs
- In moves: certain moves that you believe do/don't deserve a place as a slash or a mention, comments on what the move is actually for (examples of targets should be for non-obvious ones)
- In set details: is the ev spread suitable? alternative spreads/items?
- In usage tips: is the section as a whole lackluster? In that case perhaps you can suggest tips that would actually help readers understand how to use the Pokemon. If something currently mentioned sticks out in a bad way, bring it up
- In team options: team options should extend beyond simply a type chart -> complementary in performing roles together or accounting for its biggest flaws, so comment on those if applicable
- In other options: options here should not be good enough to deserve its own set but has shown some sort of ladder or tournament niche, so comment on those
- In checks and counters: are the current points actual answers to the pokemon? are there any more bigger ones to mention?
As it stands, am checks sometimes confuse writers on whether they should actually wait or whether implementing them completely would save QC some time. It's a mixed bag, since a good check would do the latter, while a bad one would include a ton of unnecessary details. Including just the significant changes helps QC filter through to see how much you really know about the metagame. Most of the proof of that should come from other areas of the site anyway.
tl;dr don't make am QC checks longer than they need to be. focus on the main (meta-related) points.
Hmu on discord if anything is unclear!
Last edited: