SCP Foundation

Disclaimer: I'm not going to find every mistake. I will only point out certain mistakes once.

(currently site-60). ambient temperature

Missed a capital on "ambient"

temperature is not to fall below 3.7 degrees below zero, centigrade.

Multiple issues here. First of all, you don't need a comma after zero. You don't need to write out centigrade (^oC works fine), but if you do it needs a "degree(s)" before it.

The way this is worded is hard to understand, maybe because of the repitition of the word below: "fall below 3.7 degrees below zero". Why not just put a minus symbol in front of the number?

On a less linguistic level: why -3.7 ^oC? Why that level of precision, and why not raise the level to, say, 0 ^oC or omit the temperature fluctuations entirely?

Ambient temperatures to fluctuate with seasons

You probably meant "are to".

Why? This seems like unnecessary detail.

SCP-XXXX is a phenomenon affecting panes of commercial silicate glass, dubbed SCP-XXXX-1

So SCP-XXXX is… SCP-XXXX-1? Why not call SCP-XXXX, well, SCP-XXXX?

SCP-XXXX-1 will "infect" panes

While "infect" isn't very clinical, the use of scare quotes¹ doesn't alleviate the issue. Consider "contaminate".

within a 5.78 metre radius

Again, why this level of precision? It's understandable in-universe, sure. But as a reader, out-of-universe, this is pretty boring to read.

The rate at which individual panes of glass are "infected" with SCP-XXXX is correlated with the number of nearby SCP-XXXX-1 instances, but does not follow a simple mathematical relation.

Again, seems like irrelevant detail.

Other forms of "glass", such as geologic glass (ex. obsidian)

Scare quotes again. In this instance, "glass" is a fine word to use. I will note, though, that obsidian is a form of silica glass (or, at least a type of glass with high silica content) and is probably not the best example.

Instances are observed to breath, but no

Breathe.

mildly serrated teeth

"mildly" is a relative term. Consider removing it.

a hood like that of, and wider than that of, an Ophiophagus Hannah specimen

Nitpick, but "specimen" is singular.

This can be condensed. Something along the lines of "a hood similar to, but wider than, Ophiophagus Hannah"

These "hooded drakes" (as dubbed by locals before recovery)

I dislike the use of colloquialisms in the SCP format. If you feel like it has to be included, please do so in a more reasonable fashion (e.g. recovery log stating reports of "hooded drakes")

If an instance of SCP-XXXX-1 is to fall below 3.7 degrees below 0, centigrade, instances of SCP-XXXX-2 become visible while simply looking through SCP-XXXX-1 instances.

I thought this was always the case?

The theory of SCP-XXXX-2 instances existing in an alternate universe or dimension when not observed is a popular one among research assistants, but no evidence has yet been produced.

This should be integrated better into your document, perhaps in the section introducing XXXX-2 instances. If the reader has read this far, they'll have a pretty clear picture that this is the case, making the line come off as cheesy and nonclinical.

Subject: D-43715, female, 25, convicted with one account of manslaughter

This is unnecessary detail.

A spherical approximation of SCP-XXXX-1 instances is made,

This sentence is hard to read. I assume you mean "an (approximate) sphere composed of SCP-XXXX-1", but it took me a minute to figure out what it meant. Consider changing the sentence.

Result: […]

This is a huge paragraph, which acts as a visual wall of the reader.

Noting this is where I began to skim-read your draft.

You have great clinical tone, which is a skill that not many possess. There are some minor dings and dents but, for the most part, very well done.

Your draft has a lot of unnecessary detail, spending a lot of time defining the anomaly that can be done in a more concise way without compromising information. The prime example of this would be the -2 instances, which you go into great detail on what they look like, behaviour, etc. when most of this information goes unutilised in the draft or can be figured from context.

Maybe I'm missing something, but -1 seems interchangeable with SCP-XXXX itself. You spend far too much time explaining how -1 functions, giving how it interacts with various materials and such, while the majority of the rules you set up are broken in some form during the testing logs. Some aspects of SCP-XXXX-1 are irrelevant such as the "infection" mechanic; they are not mentioned in the draft meaningfully.

The test logs were hard to get through. They were poorly paced and hard to read due to the large cluster of information. Consider breaking it down into smaller paragraphs.

The central idea is actually very interesting. I think that, with a change in direction and minor tweaks to the concept, this could very well be a very good mainlist entry. However, there are a few flaws I would like to address:

1) XXXX-1 is not that interesting to me, as a reader, if it is not given a more pivotal role.

Right now, -1 acts as just the bridge to the "other world" or "unknown" and gives very little meaning to the story outside of that. The fact that it is unknown if -2 exists without -1 begs the question: why not just round up all the plate glass? The object would be rendered essentially harmless.

This detriment could be flipped on its head by making SCP-XXXX-1 a valuable and limited resource not only to the D-Class, but to the entire Foundation. Imagine being given a small piece of obsidian as your only lifeline against these invisible hooded drakes. If you're set on making testing logs, I would suggest taking this approach.

2) The object is a Thing That Does A Thing. There is no true plot.

-1 is a generic magical item: it allows you to see -2.
-2 is a thing that kills you.

These, by themselves, are not enough to keep a mainlist SCP afloat themselves. SCPs aren't just scientific documents about weird things. They're stories disguised as them. There are multiple avenues of approach to generating a narrative, and many of which you make the beginnings of (e.g. -2's origin, taming the creatures) but never expand upon.

I highly suggest developing a narrative and revolving the addenda around it.

I like this idea. Maybe because it reminds me of the Spiderwick Chronicles which I was really into as a kid. Maybe it's because I think invisible creatures are interesting. I don't know.

What I do know is: this draft is weighed down by needless complexity and a lack of narrative focus. You'd do well to kill your darlings and trim down the descriptions of both -1 and -2 and refocus your logs on your narrative of choice.

Here are some resources I think might be useful.

• The Journey of Your First SCP: Parts I & II.
• If you decide on a horror angle: How to be Scary Without Saying Anything.
• Else, if you decide on a more mundane approach, check out Things What Do A Thing
• You have a few SPaG errors. Try Grammarly! It's free.

Of course, there's no better way to write an SCP than to read SCPs and dissect them yourself. The Foundation Awards are currently underway and provide multiple recent and excellent SCPs in a wide variety of genres.