I am glad this Article is being well received.
To be honest, I'm surprised. I'm not out to bash the article, but it needs to go back for more revision. Some comments:
1) Explain the pictures. The first thing I see when I open the article is a picture of trophies with the caption "WIN". Why is this here?
The next pictures are of Flygon, Palkia-G lvX, Luxray-DL lvX, and Gengar. later on, more pictures showing the games in progress. There is no caption on any of these and they are not even used in the article--two BIG errors in writing. Why are these pictures here? What are they supposed to tell me? Are they supposed to lead me somewhere? If you're not going to discuss the pictures in the article, don't use them! The pictures should also help explain what you are saying or lead me to the point.
(the pictures also activate my horizontal scroll. Is there a way to break up the pics in the coding?)
2) What is this article's purpose? To quote my ES Policy professor,
"I can't tell what this paper is about" (now I know how she feels :redface
. Concluding the first section before the "Deck Choice", all I get was that the goal of it is to make me a better player. How? Where is this article going to go?
3) Show, don't tell. The article tells me to be consistent without showing me how. There is a very good message in the constistency section, that is the note, but no good information.
"Deck “B” sets up 9/10, but doesn't always win, even if it sets up. However, it wins 7 out of every 8 battles that it sets up. "
It sets up 9/10, but wins 7/8 games that it sets up? So, about 7.8 (63/80) games that it sets up it wins? Did I do that math correctly? Why not say it wins 7 of the 9 games that it sets up? That way, we understand that 7/10 is better than 4/10.
As good as these numbers are, maybe some examples of how consistency works in a deck would serve the article better? How do I make my deck consistent? What cards create consistency? What cards do not create consistency?
The same applies to the KISS section. The two sections should be merged since they both talk about consistency.
In the backup planning section, give more examples of how to do what you're saying. How do I know when I need a Warp Point? What is part of the etc in the list of things to do?
In the "
Observe, Plan, Adjust, Adapt!" section, the questions there are good because you are showing instead of telling :smile:. Perhaps elaborate on why those questions are important?
Now that you know how to pick a deck and understand the basic concepts of how it works, it's time to learn some basic and fairly advanced strategies.
No, I don't know how because the article never tells me :frown: . How do I know what is consistent?
What is your opponents active Pokemon?
From this Pokemon can you identify what deck your opponent is using? Very often with lone Unown G ...
If you can ID the deck, is it a threat to your deck? (potential auto-loss?)
This is very good! :thumb: What is the important question at the time or what should I be looking for? You told me. How is looking for this information helpful? You told me.
Connect these three to show they are part of the same thought instead of seperating them. Like you did in the part I've quoted, repeat with your other questions. What should I be looking for? Why is it important and how do I use the information?
I can't really say how to adapt to any given situation, ...
Can you atleast tell me how to adapt in the situations you mentioned? Or is that your next article since it sounds like this is part of a conclusion?
4) Think about your links.
Don't link to the Encyclopedia of Pokemon Terminology. It is overwhelming in its layout and has outdated terms as well as acronyms I've never heard of or seen used. LSSM? GB (which has 2 entries)? Mize? Feral deck? Do you know those without looking them up? You've already hit the big acronyms, don't confuse me by sending me to that other list.
The link to Steven Silvestro's WC report seems like a cop out on the article's part. I'm reading this article to learn basic and advanced playing strategies but instead I'm being redirected to another's tournament report?
Instead, examples should be given by DarthPika and then quotes should be pulled out of the TR to prove the point.
Is the link about learning about localized metagame supposed to lead to the tournament and organized play forum? What is that supposed to do for me? :frown:
5) Use quotes to support/prove your ideas, not speak for you.
I'm reading DarthPika's article for his thoughts on how I be a better player. So, when DarthPika quotes Chairman Kaga in the metagame section, he needs to tell me how the quote is important. The quote reinforces the point, but currently there is no point to reinforce.
6) Examples need to support the idea.
The examples in the logic section have nothing to do with this article.
I can't tell what this section is about.
Is this article about helping me learn strategies or teaching me to shop around?
What is the difference between "logic" and "luck" in this game? Isn't it all luck? If not, where can I find the "logic"? Are you talking about deck design (and if so, should the section be merged with the consistency section?) or about game play?
If you do what to keep the pricing example, here's a chance to teach players about store loyalty. Instead, make the example more like:
You-Play-Here Hobby Shop sells Uxie for $10
Online-Retailer sells Uxie for $10
Logically, you should buy from the hobby shop because you play at that hobby shop and supporting the business provides you a place to play. SD_PokeMom says it so much because it is true :wink:
7. Proofreading and not using dead words.
This bugs me so I'm addressing it. Due to the fact, because of the fact, despite the fact, etc do not mean anything. Don't use them. You can omit them and still say the same thing.
The short term planning section needs proofreading.
Due to being very busy with college, I probably won't be able have this as thorough as I would like until a little later in the year.
What is this?! If this article is not ready, why are you submitting it to be read? You want it to be out by CCs, but then maybe you should have worked harder on it to meet that goal. This admission leads me to wonder why this article was approved when it needs to be sent back to you for revision and you already knew it before you submitted it :frown:
Never tell your audience "This presentation is not as complete as I'd like it to be because I had another class to do homework for, but this is what I've got." :nonono: I too am in college so I don't want to waste time reading half-done articles. :frown:
I was hoping someone else would have highlighted areas for revision, but the comments all say that this is a great article. We learn to write by rewriting. Again, this isn't to bash the article, although my final comments may seem harsh. Currently, the article is average but it can get better :thumb:. You need to put in the time though.