C&C QC Guide

[autumn]

What is the QC process?
Quality Control (QC) is the stage of analysis writing where the QC team, made up of knowledgeable experts in the metagame, reviews the analysis for, well, quality! They are here to make sure that the sets are accurate, the role of the set is described accurately, and the examples, teammates, and other metagame information is all metagame-accurate.

Once you have written your analysis, you should alert the QC team you are ready for a check (consult your section’s information thread for how to do this; it may be updating the title, pinging the QC members, or just commenting “ready for QC”). One of the QC members will reply with a QC check that outlines what exactly they think needs to be updated in your current analysis. You should then update your analysis with their feedback; if you disagree with something included in a check, notify QC to discuss it instead of just leaving it out entirely when implementing. Sections require different numbers of QC checks, anywhere between one and three usually. If this is not the final check, update the title and alert the QC team you are ready for the next check. If it is, great! You can tag “GP Team” and move onto the GP stage!

Posting comments and feedback on analyses can potentially lead to you being invited to join official QC. If you are interested in joining a QC team, try AM (amateur) checking some analyses with unofficial checks or comments to show the relevant mods your skills! You can also contact the mods directly and ask what you’d need to do to join any specific QC team.

So…what should I look for in a QC check?
If you’re just starting out as a member of a QC team or looking at getting into amchecking, it can be quite daunting to figure out what to look for in checks. The scope of your QC check will change somewhat depending on the section you’re checking for and the format of the analysis. However, keeping these general tips in mind will help your checks be as good as possible! If you ever have any section-specific concerns, always reach out to the relevant C&C mods.

Things to Note

• QC checks should primarily be done through commenting. While the temptation to rewrite large chunks of text may be there, this removes the autonomy of the writer and essentially puts you in a co-writer role instead of a content checker role. Commenting is also a great way to give direct feedback to writers - if changes are just rewritten by QC, the writer won't know why you made the changes you did.
• The GP team appreciates minor fixes of Pokemon names / items / abilities etc being misspelled and small issues like capitalisation (see the GP Standards). However, please avoid large-scale GP changes like rewriting sentences or adding and removing commas. You're not expected to do GP-style checks where you have to worry about prose unless the content doesn't make sense. The role of QC is primarily to fix content, and focusing too much on grammar can make it harder to spot content errors or could introduce grammar errors accidentally. If you're interested in GP, try doing some GP amchecks after the QC stage as well!
• If you're unsure how to format your QC checks, a good method is copying the check and then making any comments inline with the analysis so it's easier for writers to implement. With this format, it gives you flexibility to comment as much or as little as you want on every part of an analysis. Making sure you're primarily commenting is important here - these examples (here and here) should help.

The Set

• It is important to note that changes made to the set should be discussed with the QC team before being changed to make sure there’s an agreement and the writer doesn’t have to change sets for every check given. If you’re an amchecker, generally avoid making set changes, but if there’s a set you’re unsure about, get some feedback from C&C mods or in your Discord’s analyses channel first.
• When checking sets, look out for any moves or items that should be slashed or shouldn’t be slashed and take meta changes into account. Other factors like natures, abilities, and Tera types (if applicable) should also be the most viable. You should also make sure the set follows the proper format; an incorrectly formatted set will cause errors when uploading.
• The EV spread is one of the most important parts of the set and can often be wrong. As QC, you should ensure that the EVs do what they’re supposed to do - use the damage calculator. Common mistakes include adding speed creep that isn’t creeping 0 Speed or max Speed and HP numbers. This thread provides a good explanation of EV spreads and how to optimize them for analyses. Any spreads that aren’t 252/252 should also be explained in the main analysis.

The Analysis

• The main thing to keep in mind when checking is to make sure everything is clearly explained and meta-relevant. Things that seem intuitive to you may not be that way to our target audience of newer players, so always ask writers to include more elaboration if needed. If you read something slightly unclear, encourage the writer to rephrase it in a way that new players can understand.
• Relevant examples should be commonly included, so be sure to pick up on any irrelevant or factually incorrect examples and tweak them.
• The first few sentences of an analysis should give a good summary of why the Pokemon or the set should be used. In some analysis formats, this is included in the overview, but a few sentences in mini formats are also sufficient. Make sure that this is concise and useful.
• Analyses aim to fully explain the sets, so make sure that any coverage and slashed moves are explained. Some coverage moves may not be intuitive to new readers, so make sure meta-relevant targets are included.
• With slashed moves, it should be clear why one move is preferred as well as the benefits of other slashes.
• If there are specific playstyles or team compositions where certain moves are preferred, make sure that is clearly explained as well.
• You should also make sure that the order of explanation in the main analysis follows the order of the set so it’s easier to find information.
• After the set is explained, most analysis formats will then discuss a Pokemon’s key weaknesses and the team options that can help patch this up. Make sure all this information is clear and correct.
• When checking teammates, it's important to ask yourself 'is this example REALLY pertinent to the Pokemon/set at hand? Writers often list the type chart, saying “This Pokemon is weak to Fire, so run Water-types” for every weakness - sometimes this can be useful, but it’s more important to focus on relevant offensive and defensive synergy.
• Make sure the writer has included a few important things in every teammates section. Is there offensive synergy? Are defensive checks to threats mentioned? If the Pokemon benefits from momentum support, are teammates mentioned? Is hazard support or control that synergises with the Pokemon mentioned? Mentioning teammates that can overwhelm shared checks and make progress is always useful.
• Do the examples listed actually fit together on a team and make sense? You wouldn’t be pairing something like Chansey with hyper offense partners. It also helps to make the types of teams a Pokemon fits on clear so new writers can experiment more with their own building; it can be good to start a teammates section with “This Pokemon fits on offensive or balanced teams”.
• Make sure the writer doesn’t use too much fluff or basic dex information. It’s better to be more concise, especially for mini analysis. Repeating a Pokemon’s stats, typing or ability that can be found at the top of the dex page isn't useful information; it’s only useful if you explain why these things make a Pokemon good or bad in the meta. For example, saying Levitate makes Rotom-W immune to Ground is considered dex info and fluff, but saying Levitate allows it to switch into prominent threats like Great Tusk and Iron Treads is relevant information.