Be sure to change the 2XXX to 2276. Also, one of your images seems broken (though that might be on my end).
I write stuff. Yipee.
New Member Info
The NASA illustration is a public domain image taken from http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/.
The orbital plot is my own work.
The third image is by Multiscoop, based on a public domain image taken from http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/.
Special thanks to JarekisCool for help with idea development. This was originally supposed to be a co-authored page with him, but life got in the way and he wasn't able to.
You're clearly done a lot of work on the science side (I have no idea what as a lay reader I'm even supposed to do with that document), the applications by the Foundation are neat, and the crosstests line up.
Unfortunately, it's really not much for an anomaly. It endlessly replicates, often around other astronomical bodies. Nobody knows how or why. That's it.
The story of the Foundation using it and the problems it poses are somewhat interesting, but they're not enough to float such a weak central narrative.
Verisimilitude is not the same thing as interesting narrative. Ideally, something here will have enough technical detail to sell the reader on the setting and provide a pleasing sense of immersion, without feeling too much like reading a technical manual.
The exceedingly technical nature of this isn't an automatic disqualifier, though I came close to down voting immediately at the supplementary document that was endless scrolling of data. But the core idea isn't really doing a whole lot. The satellites show up for some reason, and they observe stuff. Beyond serving as cross link fodder, it's not really engaging me. There's not much of a story thread, or at least one that I can pick out through the dry narrative.
I actually like that there's no obvious plotline running through this. You know, I think we need a few bare-bones articles like this to balance out all the very narrative-driven scips and format screws we see these days. Something like a palate cleanser. It's got a back-to-basics, Series I/II feel (esp. re: crosslinks), which I find refreshing.
It's dry, but it does dryness well. Mad props from the scientist in me for actually generating all that data! And I like that it leaves the origins and consequences open - it makes the reader actually think about how and why the heck this thing came to be.
However, I do feel that maybe the projected consequences in particular could perhaps do with a very small amount of fleshing-out, literally on the order of a sentence or two. As in: yes, the rate of generation is increasing quite dramatically, but what will that actually entail? Is there any possibility that they start popping up so rapidly in Earth's orbit that info suppression becomes infeasible? Will they eventually blot out the sky? Might they even generate so much matter that they eventually swamp the solar system, a la Keter-cakes? Give us a hint as to how disastrous this could be.
But I definitely like this on the whole. Gladly upvoting.
I added another paragraph to the end, is that better now?
The need for a plotline is an artificial community requirement for new SCP articles brought about by blind generalising of stock advice. What's more important is narratability, which is the way facts and events are presented - and is what this article lacks to a slight extent, as shown by your concerns. Facts are presented, built upon, elaborated - but not explored entirely, leaving it hanging on a few crosstests and a list of numbers that serve nothing but verisimilitude flavour.
Edit: that said, I like how it's finally an explanation to those space skips that are too far away to be observed by civilian facilities but are conveniently studied by the Foundation via the use of [REDACTED].