SCP Foundation

In summary: I seem to really lack the mindset that enables expert writers to recognize a good or messed up article, or to differentiate which info is verbose and which is suitable. I really need to know what kind of information is suitable (not verbose) for the SCP article to:

• be as anomalous as I wish, but still gives off atmosphere that it is not something carelessly made to be overtly anomalous. (I tried to compensate this by making addenda trying to explain the anomalous properties of the scip, but ended up being verbose and unrewarding for the readers)
• make it imply that the article is meant for scientific purposes to progressively improve protection of humanity against threats from anomalous objects, not necessarily for pleasing readers while still pleasing readers. (Since I plan to make the article reads like scientific journal, which, in general, might be associated with boring things to read by general population (including myself too), so I compensate this with pictures and things to maintain (mainly) verisimilitude (but also aesthetic interests, if possible, without losing the scientific atmosphere), but still ended up being verbose)
• show how detailed the containment procedure needs to be, adjusted to class of the scip. (eg: keter, I think, means that the procedures must be mentioned as specific as needed to keep the containment going just right, but still ended up being verbose)

Where is the best place for me to seek for help to fix my disabled sense of verbosity?

And again, thank you so much.

EDIT: And for the redacted tidbits, I intended those things redacted because the scip is considered vulnerable to (maleficent) weaponizing attempts (eg: bioterrorism, etc), so that any information that may give quite a clue to places where the scip is very likely to be found is to be censored.

I have read the McKenzie article about common pitfalls in SCP article, and the guideline on How to Write an SCP, reading some Series I, II, III scips, and some heavy-science SCPs suggested by a reviewer (SCP-1859 "Life Over Geological Time", SCP-1718 "Experimental Containment Unit"). But I still managed to mess up my draft.

Thank you so much for making time to read this thread.

Where is the best place for me to seek for help to fix my disabled sense of verbosity?

Perhaps take a look at shorter articles that did it right. You can start with poking around the entrants to the Short Works Contest that was held not too long back: http://www.scp-wiki.net/short-works-contest

When you read those works, think to yourself, "had I written this article, what would I have elaborated on? Why? And why might that elaboration have been unnecessary for this work?" Then check the discussion section to see if the community agreed with your conclusions.

Generally, the sort of "sense" of what the community likes isn't really obtained from any one or collection of guides, since the community's expectations change each year and there will always be new ways to do things. It's a good idea to read the discussion pages of shorter SCP articles in particular, to see how readers felt and which sections, if any, they wanted more information on (and if that "want" was enough to move them to a neutral or downvote).

A few thoughts:
1: I write scientific articles as part of my living. We're required to conform to fairly low wordcounts, and we're only supposed to use technical language that people subscribed to that particular journal are extremely likely to understand. We try to use simple, plain language where possible.

So, trying to make it sound "scientific" by making it entirely technical, especially when you're using technical language from multiple disciplines, isn't verisimilitude.

(Plus, you're writing a summary, not research notes. My own research notes are mostly in outline and graph form.)

2: It's helpful to look at things in terms of what the reader will like, but it's probably more helpful to also consider the SCP as a story. This story can be about:
- How the SCP was created
- How the Foundation found it
- How the Foundation contains it (usually this)
- What it does to people/things/the world (usually this)
- The Foundation researchers testing it, and what they find
- Some combination thereof

(I sadly can't find the link, but there's an excellent example of a research SCP that's a group of unpercievable photographs, and the entire story is told through what techniques the Foundation has used to try to research them, and what happened each time they did something.)

Once you know the core of your story, you can look at what advances or enhances that story, and potentially kill everything else. Have some additional containment procedures that realistically would be there, but really don't do anything for the story? They're padding; axe them.

Have some additional anomalous effects that explain some sub-functions, but are so out of place you're already putting them in addenda? I think you already know the answer. (If you can't bear to part with them, shorten the hell out of them and make them footnotes, and move on.)

With your current draft, if the story is what it does to people, it failed, because I honestly didn't even begin to grasp that. If the story was how the Foundation researched it, that didn't work because as best I can tell, you only presented the results. There wasn't a narrative to follow in terms of "we did x, we found, y, so we did z, we found… (etc.)" Even in empirical papers, we tell that as a story. I'm not saying that's the best way to tell an SCP's story, but it is a way.

Some semi-organized thoughts on my process as it relates to economy of language:

1. I imagine the SCP file as just the executive summary of an entire file on the object.
2. Despite the common perception, SCP reports aren't actually scientific papers in-universe, they are executive summaries of scientific and operational details written by experts for bureaucrats.
3. Don't be afraid to reference non-existent documents that are part of that file if it makes sense. This hints that the long and tedious details exists somewhere without you ever needing to write them.
4. Remember that the personnel who have to carry out containment and research have extensive general operating procedures and access to object-specific documents that the SCP article doesn't need to include. You don't need to specify details that fall under one of these two things.
5. Never forget that this is epistolary fiction. The focus needs to be on entertainment, not verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is still important (this form requires a fairly rigorous approach to suspension of disbelief; at least the way I approach it does), but if it interferes directly with entertainment (this is in respect to your target audience; you can choose to write for the segment of the site that likes detail and puzzles) then you need to dial it back.
6. Don't be afraid to ask reviewers to suggest cuts.