Alright, I've got a few nit-picky things to get out of the way first, then I'll move onto a more (meatier?) irk that I have.
Remove everything after Keter in the Object's class. I made this mistake once in my own first article attempt. It just is unnecessary. If the object isn't of Euclid class, then it doesn't need to be mentioned that it might be moved to Euclid class except in an Addendum.
In your Experiment XXXe, you accidentally said SCP-069 instead of 307
All SCP-XXX entities exhibited avoidance towards SCP-307. SCP-XXX-5, SCP-XXX-6, SCP-XXX-7 vocalized throughout the experiment. No entities attempted to approach or communicate with SCP-069.
This one is more of a personal irk, but I would swap experiments C and B. Human testing isn't cheap. It would make more sense if animals were used first before moving then up to D-class.
I don't really understand why SCP-XXX's were afraid of SCP-069 considering that she possess no threat. Or are they just universally afraid of SCP's?
Remove Subje and Subjf. If there isn't going to be any information in them, there there really isn't a point to having it there. To be honest, I was excited to read another article, clicked on the link and got…. [DATA EXPUNGED]. It's kind of like opening a new box of cereal only to find it empty.
Speaking of which…
Waaaay too many [REDACTED] in subjd. It just breaks up the natural flow of the writing. Ease down on the use. Think of [DATA EXPUNGED] and [REDACTED] as the salt being placed in your SCP-Article cake (I like metaphors, I apologize). You can't over-do it, or it leaves a bitter and unpleasant taste. Don't make salty cakes. These two phrases should be used lightly and with the utmost moderation.
Aaaand, I think that's about it.
As for everything else, I thought it was great. Your use of metric looked good. The attention to detail on the creatures was excellent. Well done.