I based this format on an SCP I'm writing simultaneously. The sandbox pages are crosslinked to each other, but I feel like they're different enough to be able to stand on their own (hence why I made a separate thread for this one). Specifically, I want to know how I can improve my explanation of the object and its implied issues. I'd also like to know if there's any problem with some potentially copyrighted content (band names, etc.) or my reference of real-world events which might be sensitive to some people. Lastly, regarding formatting and syntax, I copied the code for the MC&D site theme from the GOI hub, but it's not displaying. Do those themes not work on the Sandbox wiki? Other feedback is also appreciated, as always. I'm still new here, so please let me know if I'm overlooking anything really obvious. Thanks in advance for your time!
Hoo boy, I was not paying attention to the length when I said I'd crit this.
So, given the length of the work, I'll address any issues I see per report as I see fit. I try my best to be detailed in my crit, so forgive me if I tend to get a bit shakier as I go on. I'm reading this as I crit, so there might be a few "ooooohhhhhhhh"s and "uuhhhhh"s in there as I discover things. :P
Quickly, to address the CSS thing, I'm not sure how that works myself. I know there is a way to get it to work on the sandbox, but I don't know exactly how that's done. It should work just fine on the main site, though.
Now, let's begin.
To start, the first block is a bit lackluster. Typically, the descriptions (as I've seen them) are less technical and more… ad space? They are descriptors used to emphasize the best parts of the product. This kind of reads as plain, more of an insider memo if anything. I do see this comes up again later, so ditch this paragraph if it becomes irrelevant.
Solid initial report here. The external report is a bit of a pain to read without the bullet points you usually see in AWCY? formats. I'm assuming that's because the table code in wikidot isn't allowing you to use bullet points for some reason. You could probably ditch the MC&D format for a brief moment to make the AWCY? bit stand out.
Memo 01-10: This is a good passage of time here. I do always appreciate a stern depiction of MC&D. Some very solid characterization here as well.
Resignation: So, this is pretty good. However, I have a bit of an issue with how flowery all of this language is. I can believe that Jameson, being from AWCY?, can have a flair for the dramatic, but this forces an eyeroll out of me. I can't believe a person would write this down and not feel some sort of painful reaction at how over-the-moon they are being. If I could suggest anything for this, it'd be to dial it down a bit. It's a resignation letter, not a poem.
Updated Item Identifier: Not sure how to feel about the strikethrough. I understand its place, but it doesn't present well. Could be that it is too close together, in which case just put a space between the words.
Memo 17-32: I'm really liking this section. It feels like the action is picking back up, and for good reason (vinyl becoming popular). This logic and amount of back-end work do a lot for the article very quickly.
Updated Item Identifier and Inventory: I think I'm failing to see how this could be rented out. If it's supposed to simulate a personal concert experience (i.e. the sentimental souvenir in the AWCY? format), then how are these for rent to anybody? I might also be a bit dense. I suppose to be able to see any live concert at any point in time, it'd still be just as desirable.
I don't think CI would use this, however. Seems kind of out of their goals. Everything else makes about as much sense as it should.
First Release Variants: I have incredible doubts that some of these places should be accessible. I don't believe that MC&D is so dense that they would willingly allow people to go to such dangerous points of time such as the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks or the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017. It just seems careless.
Okay. Overall, this was solid right up until the incident reports. There is some intrigue, but it's underplaying serious real-life events. I highly doubt with how much news coverage there was on the two terrorist incidents that an organization like MC&D would allow for travel to these points of time. That's my biggest criticism of this work as it is now.
Thanks for the feedback (and sorry about the length)! Even if you don't read this reply, it'll help me organize my own thoughts about how to specifically edit the draft based on your critiques. I'll go point-by-point and post the new version here when I'm done.
From the few MC&D formats I've read, the descriptions seemed to me like more of an executive summary until the item was actually ready to hit the market. That said, I don't think I actually changed styles when that point came in the document, so I'll definitely be sure to do that.
You were spot-on about the table preventing me from using more than one bullet point at a time. I had the format guide open while typing and it said to reproduce the format inside the table, so I wasn't sure if I could ditch the table. However, I think I'll try what you suggested.
To be honest, I was kind of nervous about the first few memos. I've only been a site member for a few weeks and haven't actually published anything yet, so I wasn't sure if there were any spoken rules against writing characters I know little about and/or adding new minor ones for the purpose of the individual article. Your advice here helped clarify that for me, so thanks!
I completely agree with your take on the flowery language. I wanted to make sure he was distinguishable from the other characters, but I see now I took it WAY too far (I've been reading too much high fantasy lately). I'll cut it back, and in doing so I'll make sure to emphasize some aspects of the object that I think are a bit unclear (as you mention later in the document). It's probably also a good idea to do that in my SCP draft (on which this format is based).
Good advice on the strikethrough formatting. I've tried both ways and couldn't figure out which one I liked better, but since it'll make it easier to read I'll put in the space from now on.
I was afraid I cycled through too many characters in those last memos, so it's good to know I don't need to change that.
This is where I'd like to start discussing the things I didn't make clear enough. Totally my fault, since Jameson's flowery language is super dense and hard to decipher, especially when formatted incorrectly, and the others don't really explain much about it.
The item originally was Jameson's attempt to relive the first time he met his wife (hence, the souvenir requirement for making it). However, once the disk is made, anybody can use it, allowing for a rental business model. That's one of the points where the creator and the company are supposed to clash (which I don't do a good job of explaining). But your last sentence of the first paragraph in that section is why MC&D wants the object, so I'll make sure to emphasize that.
As for your second point (about CI), that ties into your next point, about the other major aspect of the item I failed to explain.
As I failed to adequately explain, the concert experience transports individuals back in time to the exact location of the concert recorded. This aspect is more clear in the SCP version of the item, but I obviously need to improve it here if I want each article to be able to stand on its own. But that's why the CI is interested in it; they could use it to pass intel from the future to personnel in the past. And that's also why it's so dangerous.
What I meant for these incident reports to imply was that the real-life catastrophes happening at some of the concerts were a result of the temporal recursion caused by the item. Essentially, at the time of recording the concerts in question were totally safe, but when people began using the item to visit the concerts something happened retroactively that caused these serious events.
This is where I feel the article leans too heavily on material that's more obvious in the SCP version (which I basically forgot to emphasize here). It's implied that, since the Foundation secured the original prototype of the item, they figured out how it works and are attempting to contain it by disrupting the concerts they know are affected as they happen. So when people start using the items, a concert previously considered "safe" at the time of recording would now be subject to Foundation scrutiny and intervention, making them unsafe. It's paradoxical and I did not do a good job of explaining it in this article, but I think I can more naturally work the extra info in through many of the edits you suggested.
Your criticisms were all very helpful and made a lot of sense. I don't know if you'll actually read this, but if you do I'd like to thank you again for your feedback. The biggest thing I need to work on is clarity of the primary message I'm trying to work in here. The SCP version of this item is meant to be more focused on the raw implications of the item's function, while this was supposed to be more story-driven; however, if I want each article to be able to stand on its own, I need to make sure that I make sure the essential info gets across. Sorry for the extremely long reply.
