Mkay, here we go. That image is disgusting, by the way. I'm glad I didn't eat lunch yet.
- Spacing. "Class:Euclid" is the first noticeable mistake.
- Phrasing with the sub-designations. "SCP-XXXX1-4" makes it look like the SCP number is five characters long.
- Phrasing with your clinical description. "brain-like tumors" seems to indicate tumors that look like brains. Tumors, as far as I know, are not close to brains in appearance or cellular makeup. Also, what kind of brains? Human brains? Ostrich brains? Mouse brains?
- Description does not state what SCP-XXXX, or any of its sub-designations, actually are.
- Don't refer to an individual as a "subject" unless you've established the experimental protocol they're being subjected to. If there's no research design or observation ongoing, they're not a subject of anything and shouldn't be called such.
- Bunch of unnecessary sentences. For example, "The progression of the disease was recorded by Foundation personnel." It's essentially obvious info, since who else would record the info in this article?
I got bored before the stages, sorry. Any way you can condense those three things down to some short, simple bullet points to orient a reader at the start of the description? Remember, the reader doesn't know anything about this object until they've read the information on it. The structure of an SCP article should facilitate a reader's understanding and logical progression of the narrative.
Did you happen to get the basic concept of this worked out in the Ideas and Brainstorming forum before starting the draft? I suggest at this point, bring it back to elevator pitch, and then ask an experienced writer how to structure it so that the information flows smoothly and doesn't overwhelm the reader.
Thank you, I will begin editing the draft. This is a wildly different version from the originals, so some ideas did change