So I wrote this baby up, what do you guys think?
So I wrote this baby up, what do you guys think?
As I mentioned in chat (and you seem to keep ignoring me), it's just too long-winded, and you have at least one instance of awkward expungement. I should have a rough idea of why this item is a SCP by the end of the first paragraph. "SCP-XXX is a parasitic plant similar to [grass species] that traps and integrates into living animal subjects, including humans."
Why do I have to read three paragraphs to finally realize this? This is an executive report, not a narrative.
I did read your input in the chat, I just wanted to get more input before I kept making changes. It doesn't help to say the same thing in the thread.
It's polite to acknowledge feedback, rather than coming back 5 minutes later and asking the same question again, thus making your critics wonder if they're being ignored. :)
"SCP-xx is a parasitic organism which targets medium to large mammals and mimics the appearance of common lawn grass. The creature uses its prehensile tendrils to sedate and bury animals which come in to contact with it and feeds by integrating its root system with the victim's digestive track." That's how I'd open up, or something similar. The main problem here is you use a lot of sentences for each idea. So instead of saying that the organism dissolves organic matter from the surface and feeds it to the victim through tubes, we get: The scp feeds you oxygen. It also feeds you water. It gives you food if food touches you. The food is melted by the scp. Then the food is transported to you. Try to streamline and compress those ideas to give the article better flow, would be my advice.
That's incredibly unofficial and would make the entire article about three lines long. I'm definitely going to completely redo the first paragraph, but your idea of "streamlining and compressing" would make the entirety of 093 go like "The scp takes you through mirrors. The place you go to is based on guilt. There are ugly things there." SCP documents are official and scientific. They aren't supposed to give you the bare minimum in layman's terms.
He was summarising. As in "this is the basic shape your article should take".
In that case all he was doing is summarizing what I had already written…
Just trying to give you some style tips that have worked for me, no need to take it personally ;)
I'm not really taking it personally, I just don't exactly know what you're trying to say. I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting those sentences like "It gives you food if food touches you" aren't actual examples of what you're suggesting I write…
No, that's an example of the way you're conveying information very slowly. The exact sentences are "When any organic material the victim is capable of safely consuming is placed above SCP-XXXX, tendrils will pull the substance into the ground, in a manner similar to obtaining victims. SCP-XXXX will then apply a corrosive substance to the object, reducing it to a liquid. Organic "tubes" will then transport the substance into the victim's digestive system, effectively feeding the subject." which is a very awkward formation, in my opinion.
Aren't there already like 2 killer grass SCPs?
This is hardly a "killer grass" SCP. This, to a degree, does the opposite. It forces you to stay alive, using you to keep itself alive.
You could find pretty much any article on the site based of a real-world creature or object and find two more based off the same initial object.
Actually I just edited that out. Anyway, I've made some changes in the writing. This seems to be meeting a lot of hostility, so I'm thinking it'll probably be difficult to get it to work, might have to scrap it.
Criticism does not equal hostility. If you meet actual hostility, you'll know. That said, this is pretty lackluster. If this is going to work you'll need to introduce something that makes us go from "not another people-eating plant thing" to "not another people-eat…WHOAH".
Eh, splitting hairs. The effect is still the same. Excessive hostility or criticism means the article isn't deserving of the site.
However, I don't see how this is a "people-eating plant thing". It might not be incredibly original, but the plant's not eating people. At least not in the traditional sense of literally consuming their tissue.
I'm not sure what excessive criticism means, but in my experience lots of criticism means that people want the article to succeed. But you should consider learning to accept criticism if you're going to keep writing here.
Nevermind the wording of excessive and stuff
The way I see it, I'm not good enough yet to convert an "eh" idea into a decent article. At this stage, if there are too many things wrong with my articles, I probably won't be able to improve them enough to get on the site. I'm find with scrapping something if I can't get it to work.