Got feedback? Questions? I'll be sure to answer as soon as possible. Criticism is welcome and appreciated.
This was already posted and deleted from the main page, so I'm looking to see what I'm still doing wrong. I know there's something wrong with the execution, but I just can't figure out what.
- Censored Containment Procedures: Except for site designations, you shouldn't censor anything in the Procedures. They must be known to keep a SCP contained.
- Generic Magic Item: This SCP exists without any real story or context, relying on the core anomaly to carry it's weight. The core anomaly is not interesting enough to do that.
Primary issue here is that you have a simple Object without a story or narrative. And no, that little blurb at the end doesn't count. While not an issue in and of itself, your object is larely too uninteresting to get by without one, and therefore needs a bit more to it. It looks like you're trying to imply that human cadavers or souls try to climb it, but you don't go anywhere with that angle.
Y'see, modern successful SCPs typically aren't just reports on objects, but stories in the form of reports on objects. We don't merely want to tead about a weird object, but read about the implications or events that surround the weird object. A plague is boring - the story of a community trying to survive one is interesting. A sprite is boring - the story of some poor shmuck who keeps getting pranked by the sprite is interesting. Cthulhu is boring - the story of him trying to take a vacation at Pismo Beach without causing a mass panic is interesting.
If you're having trouble trying to see what I'm saying, read more Series II and III articles, and focus not on what the object is, but what happens over the course of the article.
I have to agree with dankaar, there is not enough "juice" to the story to make it good, as it's frankly just a, lengthy, huge growing pole a growing pole. I think you're writing style is spot on however.
ThePanMan, this feedback is too vague to be helpful. What is the "juice" that you think the piece lacks? Can you provide an example of what the author could do to make the draft more interesting? Just saying "add something" doesn't give the author much of a direction to follow.
Furthermore, if someone has already written a substantial review, there's no need to tack on a "me too" post if you're not going to provide the author with any new feedback that can help them with improving the draft.
Alright, I tried to make it more complex. If you have criticisms, post them!
Also, the reason that there's no grey box around Addendum 2 is because I don't know how to add one.
If you mean a quote box like the one above, you just use a chevron > symbol followed by a space, then the text.
OK, I've updated it. If anyone ahs any critiques, post them!
I got a PM about this, so I am here to crit it.
Overall, while anomalously growing steel beams and revenants are probably unrelated enough to be interesting, this gives a straightforward explanation for it nearly from the start that isn't actually very interesting. Maybe the religious symbolism can be more implied than overt?
Thanks so much for this! Really cleared up a lot of stuff. Also, the reason that I added "It is currently unknown how SCP-22XX was still able to stand under its own weight." was becausse of something dankaar said.
Is this actually an issue with steel girders? There are hundreds of radio masts and towers that are many times this.
Are all those radio masts and towers a single unsupported girder so many hundreds of feet high with the equipment, or are multiple girders that are constructed with tresses and cables embedded in the ground to keep the whole thing upright?
Because the SCP is basically a long steel girder that has no support once it bursts through the top of the building.
I don't know, that's why I asked, I am not an engineer. However it seems to me that with masts with cables the cables don't keep it from collapsing from its own mass but rather keep it from toppling over if it gets nudged past equilibrium. I don't see how stay cables are structural at all, certainly the cables that we used on the (smaller) radio masts we erected when I was in the Corps just keep the mast upright. I.e., it seems to me to be an issue of balance rather than ~100 meters of steel being too weak to support its own mass.