Some questions I'm currently thinking about:
Is -7 really necessary or should I leave it out? I'm considering leaving because it's a clue about what caused this, but at the same time I feel like -6 would have more of an effect if it was the last thing in the description.
Does the addendum need to be there? I'm probably going to leave the addendum there but I still want to hear your thoughts on it.
Any tone issues I need to fix?
What is your overall reaction to the SCP?
Thanks in advance for the feedback.
Quick skim, here we go, comments made as I read.
- I'm not loving the "Due to the remote location of SCP-XXXX-6, full containment is impossible." sentence. I feel like this info doesn't really need to be stated outright—the description will let us know about the location, and containment should be focused on what the Foundation can do, rather than stating first what currently cannot be done.
- "Combustible material" seems excessively vague. According to a Google search, paint is combustible. If you don't want to note a specific go-to, at least state that a list has been prepared of acceptable materials so it's not like Foundation staff can make any substitutions they like so long as the material fits under the loose term of "combustible".
- Try to avoid censoring anything in the containment procedures. Blanking out a four-digit SCP number seems iffy, especially since the reader (and likely any in-universe personnel member) would have no idea what's being referred to, given how many four-digit SCP numbers there are.
- Description is kind of… sloppy? In the first paragraph, we don't even know if this F█████ O███████ individual is human. Plenty of things out there have two arms, two legs, a torso, and a head.
- I'm not really buying the "The different parts of SCP-XXXX are theorized to collectively emulate the functions of a rocket." bit. Does every part seem to be capable of functioning like a rocket? Phrasing's a little weird.
- Also, what kind of rocket? Wikipedia tells me that "A rocket (from Italian rocchetto "bobbin") is a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle that obtains thrust from a rocket engine." That's a lot of things that this could be.
- Not too sure if you need stuff like "SCP-XXXX-2 possesses no unique anomalous physical features." Comment on what is there, rather than what's not, etc.
- I'm not sure about the "SCP-XXXX-4 appears to be the left leg of F█████ O███████." bit. Even if there's a genetic difference, it's not like the rest of the parts are really similar to body parts from a living human being, so it seems a little weird to me to treat this one so much differently.
- "However, genetic testing shows that SCP-XXXX-4 is genetically identical to G███████ W█████." Not sure about the wording here. It just seems weird to compare a leg to an entire human. Maybe compare genetic code to genetic code?
I kind of got lost before hitting the collapsible. I felt like the article was a combination of not enough basic information (remember, you as the author know everything about the object, but we readers don't know anything about it until we've read that info!) and too much detail that seemed like fluff at the end. Did you research specific rocket builds before writing this?
I've made some edits that hopefully fix most if not all of these problems, but I do have one question.
I'm not sure about the "SCP-XXXX-4 appears to be the left leg of F█████ O███████." bit. Even if there's a genetic difference, it's not like the rest of the parts are really similar to body parts from a living human being, so it seems a little wierd to me to treat this one so much differently.
I simply don't understand this, and each time I try to decipher it I get even more confused. All the other body parts are genetically the same(except for -5, which I'm gonna replace anyway) except for -4. Have I not clarified that a leg from FO and a leg from GW would look different enough that "appeared" would be applicable here? Or is it something else?
Have I not clarified that a leg from FO and a leg from GW would look different enough
I didn't pick up on that at all, but admittedly, pretty much the entirety of the article just felt overwhelming to me.
Definitely get some more physics-savvy readers on the draft. I don't think I'm the best-suited reviewer for stats-heavy work like this.
SCP-XXXX-5 has been completely rewritten. Critique accordingly.