SCP Foundation

Note: I correct the given mistake only once. If you do not use the metric system, I will only make a single comment about it, even if it appears again in the rest of the article. If the draft has many language problems, I will only correct the most glaring ones. Unnecessary information will show as the copied text with the redundant information stricken through.

The glass container is guarded by a site security guard. The container has a six-digit numerical passcode, for both the hatch and the door. Assistant Researcher Charles and Lead Researcher Brian have the passcode for the container, which will be given out for the sole purposes of either to conduct an experiment or to feed SCP-XXXX specimens.

Why would guards be necessary if the thing is already contained? This is a huge waste of man-hours. Many users interpret use of an excessively extreme containment procedures as an attempt to make an object seem more powerful or dangerous than it really is, and therefore assume that the author doing so is the sort of person who thinks that "dangerous" is the same thing as "interesting". Not saying any of this applies to you literally, but that will be a common perception.

Avoid naming specific personnel. If you name someone specifically but they are unavailable in-universe, personnel won't know who to address instead. This is especially true if you then proceed to blackbar it anyway, because we won't know who to talk to.

In-universe, it doesn't make sense for a single person to be the point of contact for all research done on a single item. If that person is injured, killed, or otherwise incapacitated then all research is stonewalled until someone else can take over, and then we have to update all documentation related to it, which just causes an immense amount of confusion. It's far better to mention things like "Senior Researchers" or "Site Directors", titles instead of names.

Out-of-universe, any specific name in the Procedures section a) violates the nameless/faceless theme of the Foundation and therefore feels out of place, and b) looks like a self-insert whether that was your intention or not.

Author, unfortunately this seems to be a fairly standard monster that kills you. Concepts like this get posted (and deleted) a lot on the main list, sometimes daily. We have a lot of them and it gets old fast.

This is unfortunately a pretty common trap of SCP drafts to fall into, the ''generic monster''. A somewhat common archetype in Series 1, but it's fallen out of favor, giving way to more complex documents and stories. The article doesn't really seem have much more depth than a containment procedure, brief description, and testing with rough answers of what you already provided. That isn't to say that it's absolutely impossible to ever do this again, but it will need more to it than that. Something beyond what it is, and what it does. Giving more details about how exactly it kills you won't improve it. Focus on the why, not on the how.

Why does this thing exist? Why does it have these properties? What makes it different story-wise from any other monster already on the mainlist?

On to the good part: Despite the concept needing a revamp, the clinical tone and formatting are done very well, and I think you have a lot of potential for writing on the wiki.

I recommend getting the base idea polished up in the Ideas and Brainstorming forum before you try fixing the draft. Go to that forum, post a quick summary of the concept you want to write up (don't link the draft unless someone asks), and reviewers there can help you make the idea more interesting and give you some advice on structuring the eventual article for smoothness of reading and narrative.