Get Help With English Here

Thank you. Yeah, that was a lot of errors. Okay here it is a second time, just to ensure there are now no more errors.

For Annalise

• Byronic Heroine: Annalise hits all the checks, being a highly intelligent woman who is complicated to point that even she is uncertain of her exact morality. She is heavily self-critical bordering on self-loathing. Ruthless and amoral, yet at the same time remaining sympathetic and tragic due to her past experiences and trauma’s; and possessing a great passion and determination for her chosen profession.
• Inferiority Superiority Complex: Sure she is confident in her skills, and often comes across as arrogant. However, when it comes to her personal life Annalise is barely holding it together, and wallows in guilt and self-loathing.

For Asher

• Abusive Parents: His father was emotionally abusive to him, to the point he accused him of being ungrateful and then began insulting him when Asher tried to get him to confirm he wasn’t corrupt. His mother likewise outright blames him for his father’s suicide, and effectively disowns him, cutting off his finances.
• Riches to Rags: In Season Three, following his mother more or less disowning him, Asher no longer has his family’s financial support and is forced to live in a first year dormitory, offering sexual advice to freshmen in exchange for money.

For Connor

• Dark and Troubled Past: Implied, he was shipped off to a boarding school when he was very young and admits to knowing absolutely nothing about his father. He also manages to easily connect to an abusive victim, demonstrates a lot of understanding of feeling abused, and shows a previously unseen fury when her appeals court starts victim blaming her.
• He's Back!: At the start of the series Connor was on track to be the best lawyer of the Keating Five. Following Sam’s death he was traumatised and became a lot less active. Then in Season three, after accidentally getting a case involving a former abuse victim who killed their abuser, which everyone else believed was hopeless, he wins.
• Jerkass: While charming, Connor is quite arrogant, and at the start of the series has no problems with sexual manipulating people. He can also be outright nasty towards to Michaela. He gets better.
• Jerk with a Heart of Gold: Connor really does love Oliver, and while he can be arrogant and hostile, he is one of the more moral members of the Keating Five. He is the one who had the least to do with Sam’s death, point blank refusing to help defend a murderous sociopath, and outright losing his temper when his client gets victim blamed. He’s likewise horribly shaken and guilt-ridden when he accidentally plays a part in Pax’s suicide.

For Michaela

• Inferiority Superiority Complex: She generally comes across as incredibly arrogant, and regularly boasts her supremacy. However underneath it all she’s really insecure, to the point she honestly believes that nobody truly likes or cares about her.
• Insufferable Genius: Michaela is the best member of the Keating Five academically, scoring 96 in her second year midterm and being accepted into Harvard and Columbia. She likewise never misses an opportunity to remind everyone else how smart she is.
• Jerkass: Her unapologetic desire to be the best, coupled with her relatively short temper, selfishness and arrogance cause her to often come across as this.
• Jerk with a Heart of Gold: While she possesses a “take no prisoners” ambition and often acts smug, Michaela is at heart not such a bad person. She does value her friendship to Connor, and is very sympathetic to him during his break up with Oliver. At one point gave an extra thousand dollars she had to a homeless person.

For Bonnie

• Jerk with a Heart of Gold: Immoral and cold as she is, Bonnie is outright devoted to Annalise, and is deeply caring towards Frank and Asher. Overall, once you manage to develop a relationship with her, she’s a lot more willing to open up and show her softer side.
• Sour Outside, Sad Inside: Bonnie often comes across as cold and uncaring, but as the series goes on it becomes more and more clear that is mostly just her way of dealing with all the abuse she’s suffered throughout her life.

For Frank

• Ambiguous Disorder: Frank displays noticeable signs of having something wrong with him. Possessing a very high intelligence, noticeable desensitization to violence, a contradictory sense of empathy, is very manipulative and deceptive, but at the same time carries an extreme amount of guilt and self-loathing, as well displaying Troubling Unchildlike Behaviour when he was younger. In-verse Frank spent years believing he was a sociopath; however it’s demonstrated on multiple occasions and outright confirmed by Sam that he isn’t, as he can feel remorse and is able to develop meaningful relationships with others.
• Assassin Outclassin': When Annalise hires a professional hitman to kill him, Frank manages to overpower and kill the man.
• Genius Bruiser: Though not well educated like the others, Frank is very intelligent and cunning, proving to be an impressive tactician. He’s likewise Annalise’s muscle.
• I Am a Monster: Spent years believing he was a sociopath and outright hated himself following trying to kill his own father.
• Used to Be a Sweet Kid: Ten years ago, he used to be Annalise's somewhat guileless secretary. Subverted, as it’s later revealed this was recently after he was released from prison.
• Troubling Unchildlike Behaviour: Frank planned and attempted to murder his father for trying to discipline him as a child. He spent years of his life hating himself for it to the point that until he met Sam, he outright refused any attempt to get paroled from prison.

edited 20th Nov '16 2:43:05 PM by MGD107

Thank you very much.

Hi there. Maybe I can help a bit. There are still a few things that can be changed, but overall it's not too bad.

—

Annalise

This is kind of weird to read, but it can be fixed up easily. Perhaps something like this?

• She is ruthless and amoral, yet at the same time remains sympathetic and tragic due to her past experiences and traumas while possessing a great passion and determination for her chosen profession.

You also don't need an apostrophe in "traumas." The trauma itself doesn't "have" or "possess" anything.

The only thing I see wrong with this is that it reads weirdly without a comma between "Sure" and "she."

• Sure, she is confident...

—

Asher seems fine for the most part. There's only one minor change that I can see being made for the sake of clarity.

• His father was emotionally abusive to him, to the point his father accused him...

This is not that big of an error, since most people can probably tell that it's daddy doing the insulting since the next part talks about ungratefulness. It's just that this change helps the reader follow along since there are two male characters being referred to as "he."

—

Connor

You can remove this comma between "abuser" and "which." While it's not wrong, it helps make the sentence easier to read.

• Then in Season three, after accidentally getting a case involving a former abuse victim who killed their abuser which everyone else believed was hopeless, he wins.

Sexual —> sexually

• While charming, Connor is quite arrogant, and at the start of the series has no problems with sexually manipulating people.

You might want to keep the tense of the sentence consistent. Also, there are some words that can be omitted.

• He (words here were removed) had the least to do with Sam's death, point blank refused to help defend a murderous sociopath, and outright lost his temper when his client gets victim blamed.

—

Michaela

Maybe insert an "about" in there.

• She generally comes across as incredibly arrogant, and regularly boasts about her supremacy.

Insert a "she" in there.

• At one point she gave an extra thousand dollars she had to a homeless person.

—

Bonnie is fine.

—

Frank

The contents of the list is fine, but how the list is structured needs a bit of work.

• He possesses a very high intelligence, a noticeable desensitization to violence, a contradictory sense of empathy, is very manipulative and deceptive, but at the same time carries an extreme amount of guilt and self-loathing, as well as displaying Troubling Unchildlike Behaviour when he was younger.

Thanks for your help Arivne, as usual.

Also, I would like to polish and add some words for Geodesic Cast, video game section for Touhou.

• The stage 2 boss is similar to the stage 1 boss, but role wise, they mostly work as a guardian or gatekeeper of a certain place. Personality-wise, despite being a guardian or gatekeeper, they are trying very hard to do or be something different, so much so they are deliberately halts the heroines' journey in order to do so.

• The stage 3 boss is mostly denoted by a flexible personality. While in general they are friendly, polite and honest, they become tenacious if also merciless once the battle ensues. Some of these bosses may posses Super-Strength or Super-Toughness of sorts, and more often than not they also proficient in close combat. They also being the first to tell your character which way to go after being defeated.
• The stage 4 boss has about equal odds of being connected to the Final Boss of the game and usually being the most serious when compared to other bosses, both in general encountered personality and difficulty terms. Their role and/or Spell Cards always seem to change, depending on which character you play or shot type you choose.
• The Bonus Boss usually being optional and that supposed to be a challenge for the player that only appears in the Extra Stage. They can only be encountered if certain conditions are met in the main scenario of the game. These bosses are considered tougher to deal with due to their bizarre bullet patterns and having more Spell Cards than the final boss, mostly up to ten. In addition, these bosses are usually immune to the player's Smart Bomb. Story-wise, while they have little to no connection to the main story, they does have some connection to the final boss of the game; being a relative, a friend, a benefactor, an archenemy or even a low-level youkai with tremendous power.

edited 21st Nov '16 5:52:55 AM by Strafe2409

Thank you.

I got sent here for making a couple of typos, but I guess I can observe this thread to help out my future edits in addition to training my fingers.

edited 21st Nov '16 6:48:54 AM by UltraWanker

Hi there.

I'm going to admit that I'm not very familiar with the trope, so I don't know whether or not it's being used properly. I'll try to correct what I can see though.

The stuff after "different" needs a bit of work. One way to fix it is to remove the "are" and the "s" after halts.

• they are trying very hard to do or be something different, so much so they deliberately halt the heroines' journey in order to do so.

You also use the word "so" three times in the same fragment, and that sounds kind of weird. Not a big error, but it's just weird. You can try replacing "so much so" with "to the point where."

• they are trying very hard to do or be something different, to the point where they deliberately halt the heroines' journey in order to do so.

Your placement of the apostrophe on heroines' implies that there's more than one heroine. If that's the case, then great. If there's only one heroine, then you should move the apostrophe so that the word is "heroine's" instead.

—

• and more often than not they are also proficient in close combat. They are also the first to tell your character...

—

I don't quite understand what you mean by "equal odds," but I'm just going to go with what you said. Maybe try to fix that, if it's important?

Replace "being" with an "is."

• The stage 4 boss has about equal odds of being connected to the Final Boss of the game and usually is the most serious when compared to other bosses.

—

Okay. Um. This point is different from the others. It doesn't really talk about personalities, and instead first talks about the gameplay aspects of the Bonus Bosses, followed by how they're related to the final boss.

Focusing solely on the English though, the first sentence really needs a rewrite. I'm having troubles offering a rewrite myself because I'm not 100% on where you're trying to go with it.

You also can replace a "does" with a "do" somewhere near the end.

• Story-wise, while they have little to no connection to the main story, they do have some connection...

This is going to overlap somewhat with Inediblecake's response above.

• they are deliberately halts the heroines' -> they deliberately halt the heroines'
• they become tenacious if also merciless -> they become tenacious and merciless
• may posses -> may possess
• They also being the first -> They are also the first

• and usually being the most serious -> and is usually the most serious
• both in general encountered personality and difficulty terms. -> in terms of both personality and difficulty.

• The Bonus Boss usually being optional -> The Bonus Boss is usually optional
• and that supposed to be a challenge -> and is supposed to be a challenge

• mostly up to ten. -> often up to ten.
• they does have some -> they do have some
• game; being a relative, -> game, such as being a relative,

edited 22nd Nov '16 7:08:33 AM by Arivne

Okay, I'm new to this page but I was told to come here or I might be banned permanently. See a while back I was told the edits I'd made to the "Prehistoric Park, Characters page", among a other subpages of that, were loaded with grammatical errors. Of course I get that I can mix up the do's and due's. So...can I get some kind of sheet that shows all these errors? I figure with that I can patch up the page quick so people can go back to enjoying it.

edited 24th Nov '16 9:44:12 PM by firejewel

Bunnies for Cuteness

(For the Western Animation Page)

• Swift Heart Rabbit from Care Bears is an energetic,sweet and optimistic bunny.

firejewel, you wrote:

• Fluffy the Terrible: Their both Tyrannosaurs Rex's, one of the most revered (and feared) dinosaurs in history. Nigel decides to give them the names... Terence and Matilda.

The correct spelling is 'they're' because it is a contraction of 'they are'. 'Their' means belonging to them.

Also, "Tyrannosaurus Rex's" is the possessive and means something belongs to a Tyrannosaurus Rex. The plural is "Rexes"

• Care Bears -> Care Bears
• energetic,sweet -> energetic, sweet

edited 26th Nov '16 12:37:18 AM by Arivne

Thanks for the bit about "Rexes", just fixed it. Anything else I missed?

Okay I've got a pretty long one here.

• The Prime Directive is often criticized as a near-religious document that is usually used by the writers as a poor attempt at moral exploration, and simply allows the characters to act like jerkasses and be completely insensitive to innocent beings plight. Fans often blame The Next Generation for introducing this, and it's been ubiquitous with Trek ever since, reaching its nadir in Enterprise episode "Dear Doctor", often considered by fans to be one of the worst in the franchise, where the crew allow a species to painfully go extinct because of a pseudo-scientific understanding of evolution and extremely flimsy and cynical ethics. The Prime Directive even appears in Star Trek: Into Darkness, with Kirk being chastised for saving an alien species from extinction. However, the Prime Directive originated with TOS. Not only did it originate the concept, but it also originated it as a poor vehicle for moral and ethical dilemmas, and even introduced the concept of the characters willing to die simply to uphold it for often questionable reasons. The difference was that in TOS the main priority was always placed upon protecting the endangered species in question, with the heroes normally being in favour of ignoring it to save the day. When the prime directive was brought up in objection to interfering it would normally get an at least understandable (if hastily obtained and upon examination questionable) explanation as to why it didn’t apply in this scenario, such as the species already being exploited/endangered by an alien threat. In the events it was upheld it was only in cases where breaking it was clearly wrong (such a rogue captain using advanced weapons to provide one faction an advantage in a war) or when the only people in danger were the heroes themselves. While this was often only to prevent the plot being solved in two minutes it was at least understandable (if morally dubious and flimsy) and if squinted even admirable. Later series however put the priority upon enforcing the prime directive, with the heroes treating an entire species needlessly going extinct as preferable to breaking it, even if the disaster was avoidable without species being aware of their interference (something which was explicitly shown to never be done in TOS). A combination of never giving any good explanations behind this reasoning, and later writers (especially VOY) abusing it by hammering it into to many situations where it clearly didn’t fit or make any sense just to prevent the conflict being easily solved, meant that it lost any impact whatsoever and fans grew to hate it. Especially as it often made the heroes look like hypocrites simply for doing the right thing.

• Star Trek's obsession with time travel is grating on quite a few fans, something that even JJ Abrams embraced with his reboot franchise, but Star Trek has been using time travel casually since TOS. It helps that some of the franchises most popular and acclaimed episodes (The City On The Edge Of Forever, Yesterdays Enterprise, All Good Things, The Visitor) and films (Star Trek IV and Star Trek: First Contact were the most successful films before Star Trek 09, all to do with time travel) have centred on time travel, alternate timelines and universes, etc. Basically after five different series have happily used it over and over again, it can’t help but feel a bit overused and repetitive.

edited 28th Nov '16 5:31:06 AM by MGD107

The first entry is a hard-to-read Wall of Text. It would help if you could break it up into smaller paragraphs.

• innocent beings plight -> the plight of innocent beings
• The Next Generation -> Star Trek: The Next Generation
• Enterprise -> Star Trek: Enterprise
• Star Trek: Into Darkness -> Star Trek Into Darkness
• characters willing to die -> characters being willing to die
• prime directive -> Prime Directive
• objection to interfering it would -> objection to interfering, it would
• In the events it was upheld it was only -> In the events it was upheld, it was only
• solved in two minutes it was at least -> solved in two minutes, it was at least
• and if squinted even admirable -> and, if squinted at, even admirable
• Later series however put -> Later series, however, put
• prime directive -> Prime Directive
• as preferable to breaking it -> as being preferable to breaking it
• without species being -> without the species being
• especially VOY -> especially Star Trek: Voyager
• hammering it into to many -> hammering it into many

• The City On The Edge Of Forever, Yesterdays Enterprise, All Good Things, The Visitor -> "The City On The Edge Of Forever", "Yesterday's Enterprise", "All Good Things", "The Visitor"
• Star Trek IV and Star Trek: First Contact -> Star Trek IV and Star Trek: First Contact
• Star Trek 09 -> Star Trek (?)
• Basically after five different series -> Basically, after five different series

edited 29th Nov '16 4:53:34 AM by Arivne

Thank you. Yeah I know its a Wall of Text. But I'm not sure how to cut it down (its a long issue) and its only one paragraph per point on Franchise Original Sin.

• The Prime Directive is often criticized as a near-religious document that is usually used by the writers as a poor attempt at moral exploration, and simply allows the characters to act like jerkasses and be completely insensitive to the plight of innocent beings. Fans often blame The Next Generation for introducing this, and it's been ubiquitous with Trek ever since, reaching its nadir in Enterprise episode "Dear Doctor", often considered by fans to be one of the worst in the franchise, where the crew allow a species to painfully go extinct because of a pseudo-scientific understanding of evolution and extremely flimsy and cynical ethics. The Prime Directive even appears in Star Trek Into Darkness, with Kirk being chastised for saving an alien species from extinction. However, the Prime Directive originated with TOS. Which also originated it as a poor vehicle for moral and ethical dilemmas, and even introduced the concept of the characters being willing to die simply to uphold it for often questionable reasons. The difference was that in TOS the main priority was always placed upon protecting the endangered species in question, with the heroes normally being in favour of ignoring it to save the day. When the Prime Directive was brought up in objection to interfering, it would normally get an at least understandable (if hastily obtained and upon examination questionable) explanation as to why it didn’t apply in this scenario, such as the species already being exploited/endangered by an alien threat. In the events it was upheld, it was only in cases where breaking it was clearly wrong (such a rogue captain using advanced weapons to provide one faction an advantage in a war) or when the only people in danger were the heroes themselves. While this was often only to prevent the plot being solved in two minutes, it was at least understandable (if morally dubious and flimsy) and if squinted at, even admirable. Later series however, put the priority upon enforcing the Prime Directive, with the heroes treating an entire species needlessly going extinct as being preferable to breaking it, even if the disaster was avoidable without the species being aware of their interference (something which not only defied the very reason they weren’t allowed to interfere but was explicitly shown to never be done in TOS). A combination of never giving any good explanations behind this reasoning, and later writers (especially Star Trek: Voyager) abusing it by hammering it into many situations where it clearly didn’t fit or make any sense just to prevent the conflict being easily solved, meant that it lost any impact whatsoever and fans grew to hate it. Especially as it often made the heroes look like hypocrites simply for doing the right thing.

• Star Trek's obsession with time travel is grating on quite a few fans, something that even JJ Abrams embraced with his reboot franchise, but Star Trek has been using time travel casually since TOS. It helps that some of the franchises most popular and acclaimed episodes (The City On The Edge Of Forever, Yesterday’s Enterprise, All Good Things, The Visitor) and films (Star Trek IV and Star Trek: First Contact were the most successful films before Star Trek, all to do with time travel) have centred on time travel, alternate timelines and universes, etc. Basically, after five different series have happily used it over and over again, it can’t help but feel a bit overused and repetitive.

edited 29th Nov '16 12:40:58 PM by MGD107

For the Hair-Raising Hare Page for Film-Animated

• In Ralph Bakshi's X rated 1972 adaptation of Robert Crumb's Fritz The Cat comic series. Fritz encounters a neo-nazi and drug addict rabbit who later chains up,beat, and rape a female horse.

• Fritz the Cat (De-Pot Holed the work name as per How to Write an Example - State the source and Word Cruft - Technologically-aided obfuscation).
• Robert Crumb -> Robert Crumb
• Fritz The Cat -> Fritz The Cat
• neo-nazi -> neo-Nazi
• neo-Nazi and drug addict -> neo-Nazi drug addict
• chains up,beat, and rape a female horse. -> chains up, beats and rapes a female horse.

It ends up looking like this:

Fritz the Cat, Ralph Bakshi's X rated 1972 adaptation of Robert Crumb's Fritz The Cat comic series. Fritz encounters a neo-Nazi drug addict rabbit who later chains up, beats and rapes a female horse.

edited 2nd Dec '16 1:16:11 AM by Arivne

(Hair-Raising Hare Page on Western Animation)

• The 1999 HBO series ''George And Martha" has an episode where George makes a bet with Martha to not eat any treats. However George later has a nightmare where he's being chased by talking chocolate bunnies. While the chocolate bunnies are cute and not scary looking they are intimidating to George.

Very well. Someone is very much scaring me to even edit in certain places in TV Tropes. Says that my grammars are atrocious. Coming from only ONE person that judges me solely from edits on just one series. It's seriously scaring me and in the same time, hurting my feelings, because the way they say it... it feels like they're telling me to go here everytime I want to edit things, like I need a frickin' permission everytime I want to edit because my grammar are atrocious to their standards, like I just de-aged and needs to go back to kindergarten.

So... I'll not ask for a certain grammar structure of a sentence, but rather... I'm giving you my Edit History and you can check five to ten of my edits, then rate my grammar, is it really atrocious as they said and I really have to come here every time I want to edit something, or is it actually fine and I don't need to come here every time I want to edit something?

Thank you.

It's not good. Your post right there is riddled with errors. Taking the second sentence: "Someone is very much scaring me to even edit in certain places in TV Tropes." This sounds like you're mentally translating another language to English. Written in a more natural way, it would read, "Someone is making me scared to edit in certain places in TV Tropes," and even then I'd approach the whole thing from a different syntactical angle.

edited 6th Dec '16 8:24:34 AM by Fighteer

Maybe I should've said 'pretty much scaring me'. Though I don't think the problem that you pointed out was as much 'atrocious grammar' but 'poor choice of words', if what you said about 'mentally translating another language into English' is true. And maybe I left out the subjects in the 3rd and 4th sentences.

... So does that mean everytime I want to edit something, I really have to go here and ask for permission or edits? It (kind of) felt like I have to unlearn everything, wear my dunce hat and go back to school...

All right, I left that thing on brackets on purpose, because that is what I wanted to type, but I backpedaled. The thing is, I added 'kind of' because I wanted to let others know that this isn't 100% feeling like, but maybe about 50%. Was that unnecessary?

edited 6th Dec '16 8:32:34 AM by ChrisX

• If you mention the Creator of a work, linking to it will make it easier for readers to find if they're interested in learning about it.
• Red linking to works without pages is useful.
• You should probably use more commas to make your sentences flow better.

You've been here a long time, but that doesn't excuse you from our general policy that all wiki writing should be in grammatically and syntactically correct English. It doesn't have to be collegiate or professional level work, but it should at least get a passing grade from a high school English teacher (and I'm talking 'B+' work, not a pity 'D', as some give out).

We apply this standard to everyone because it matters to our site's reputation. If someone comes to TVT and sees a bunch of horribly written pages, they may reach the conclusion that we have no standards and are therefore not serious about our mission. "Fun" should be had in the wittiness of our writing style, not in our inadvertent mangling of the English language.

How any particular editor meets that standard is up to them, but if someone makes repeated errors and refuses to improve, we can and will remove their editing privileges.

Note also that the work should always be the first link in an example, even if it's a redlink. Do not put the creator first; this will confuse future attempts to parse examples as data for the 2.0 revamp.

edited 6th Dec '16 8:40:37 AM by Fighteer