Quick skim, comments made as I read, here we go.
- "4 by 4 by 5 steel cage" —> why 4 x 4 x 5, why steel, why a cage? Why doesn't a standard containment chamber suffice?
- For the above, what are the units? And why are those measurements exactly required?
- low-security should have a hyphen, Site-11 should be capitalized and hyphenated, plus I'm pretty sure Site-11 is a facility, so… maybe a low-security wing?
- To avoid your sentences becoming overly repetitive, try to start each sentence with a different word. I think you have at least five sentences in containment that start with "SCP-XXXX [verb]".
- "SCP-XXXX enjoys talking to humans and especially enjoys discussing legal matters" —> this belongs in the description. If it's not an instruction on how to keep the thing locked up, it doesn't really need to be in the containment.
- You've got a lot of casual phrasing that seems out of place in a scientific document. The first bit of the first sentence of the description, "At a glance, SCP-XXXX appears just as a typical adult male sable ferret" seems less like a professional researcher's report and more of a comical BBC nature documentary's dialogue. Avoid using colloquial phrases like "at a glance" and potentially vague or subjective words/phrases like "just as a typical". Also, try to avoid using "appears" unless you want the reader to think that it's implied that the thing is radically different from what it looks like. If it essentially is a ferret and not a bear or secret wizard in disguise, call it a ferret.
- "The SCP" isn't really a term used to describe the shadow organization that contains SCP objects. The name I believe is used is "the Foundation".
- The Foundation is a shadow organization, meaning that a state bar association would have no clue that it exists.
- Only use it's when you can replace the word with "it is".
I stopped reading after that, though I skimmed the interview and felt a little iffy on it. Dr.█ seems like a poorly-trained interviewer—the comment "You aren't actually a lawyer, you just think that you are." is completely uncalled-for and likely won't make the interviewee any more forthcoming at all to the Foundation.
I'm not too sure about this. We have a lot of talking animals on the site, though probably not a ferret yet, though I couldn't help but be reminded of the SCP that I think is a fox who is a pope (also I think we have an anomalous lion in a lofty position? Maybe an emperor?), and the jarvey from the Harry Potter series/Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Definitely brush up on clinical tone, though. Currently, the piece doesn't really read like a professional scientist wrote it.
Overall… it's kind of bland, I felt. The premise is played overly straight, and it didn't really go anywhere interesting or novel. The addenda might be salvageable for a tale, though. I thought those were the strongest bits.
Thanks a lot, I appreciate the feedback.
It is in somewhat of an unrefined state at this point. I just wanted to get the idea in writing, and then make adjustments after getting feedback. I do plan on expanding to it as I come up with more ideas.
The interview was somewhat of a last minute tack on. I did plan on going more in depth with it, but it is easier to think of what you want to say, than to think of how you want to say it. The comment from Dr.█ was supposed to be condescending because I wanted to give the reader an example of what happens when you push his buttons, that is where I planned on going with that.
The addenda are the strongest bits, because that is what I was going for. I think the most interesting SCPs are the ones with a story behind them.
So yeah, … I think you did a very good job of offering constructive criticism here and it is very helpful to me. Thanks a lot.