Let's take a look, shall we?
Firstly regarding your question about Available SCP numbers… just look at the list and look at any link that says [ACCESS DENIED].
Now, about the actual article…
Formatting needs work. To create bold for the titles of each section, use this:** **
The containment procedures… are weak. I'm just going to say it. Locking it in a soundproof box… plus, since it's a painting, couldn't it be rolled up? It doesn't say it's a mural, and if it's going to be taken out at any time, maybe use ear protection? Or have ear protection for the guards? Also, please use metrics.
The item is a blank wall-scale painting adorned with a circa 1480 demonic designed copper frame. Frame consists of four demonic heads placed on each corners and an eye at the top-most center.
Confusing wording in the first sentence. Perhaps something more like "SCP-XXXX is a blank painting measuring (dimensions here) with a copper frame adorned with a demonic design. Design is consistent with depictions of demons circa the 1840s."
Item was supposedly burned, but was later found in good condition after the fire. The canvas had an original painting, a red sunset countryside scene full of female individuals in various torture devices. It is speculated that the subjects in the painting are actual people absorbed into the painting. Subjects are probably related to the ██████████ missing person cases between the █████ and ████████ era.
Again, somewhat confusing and clunky. I'd re-write this whole paragraph, and possibly delete the last half and leave the surprise for later in the article.
Speculations are based on the intercepted ritual that ████ ████████ is performing in front of the painting.
Perhaps you mean "In the foreground of the painting"? Also, "intercepted ritual"?
A female victim is tortured to the point where cognitive functions are overwhelmed by pain. The frame's eye seems to animate when the victim is about reaching climax, further observations are unavailable due to the fact that ████ ████████ was neutralized.
This comes out of nowhere. Who is "████ ████████" supposed to be? A demon? An actual person? The pope? It says that this person was somehow involved in the creation of this SCP, but it doesn't really explain HOW.
Item is observed to be parasitic due to its relation with ████ ████████ and the nature of the item calling for a host after he was neutralized. Auditory frequency seems to be high on individuals with right-brain hemisphere superiority.
Consistency. Nowhere in the article does it mention that this painting can talk, other than the containment procedures.
Addendum: The host is concluded to be in a state of irreversible demonic transformation,
Tone here. The Foundation only uses "Demonic" to describe design, i.e. "SCP-XXXX is a demonic statue". In fact… this whole paragraph seems off. I'd get someone more experienced to look at it.
The second addendum… perhaps it would be okay if we were explained just what the hell involvement Blankety McBlackbox had with the SCP earlier in the article. In fact, Blankety McBlackbox seems to be completely tacked on.
Addendum: Due to the lack of amnesiacs, one of the two surviving victims who witnessed the ritual firsthand undergo a crude hypnosis procedure.
…truth be told, I actually like this idea. The idea of the Foundation not having enough amnesiacs to go around thanks to all the fucked-up shit that happens daily is not bad. Hell, maybe amnesiacs are rationed because they're so hard to make.
Throughout the article, you refer to the SCP as "item"; it should be called something more along the lines of "The Object" if you're not going to use the SCP designation which, I recommend you do. Overall, there are several grammatical and tone issues.
Don't get discouraged by what I'm saying; some of the best SCPs on the site went through almost a dozen drafts before they got submitted, and it's okay to do a few re-writes or even scrap a whole idea. If you need more help, I'd pop into chat.
Access Denied means it's available for use? Am I correct? Thank you.
Yes, thank you, I am actually glad that someone took time to read and analyze this. And at the same bury my head on the ground.
It is very helpful that I don't know how to rephrase your suggestions.
Yes, I am sorry about not using the metric system as I was told to use. I will change it along with the editions.
I understand the confusion, yes, I will find a way to may it clear.
I started to write the article on a quasi-Foundation agent coming from a demonology culture point of view to reflect on my outlook and inexperience to everything SCP and wikidot.
Based on the article, it didn't come out that*
The object is a sentient painting as a whole (canvas and frame).
The voice is audible to a specific group of individuals (mainly painters) that the writer doesn't belong.
Individual responds to its calling slowly transforms into a demon (amplification of the subconscious's dark side, not possession) to do it's bidding on feeding it with tortured women souls, and physically affects the respondent overtime.
Blankman is a human immortalized as a demon that has a nodus operandi of adopting girls for the painting and adopts one boy as his inheritor, fakes his death, kills the inheritor by the time of his age, take the inheritor's identity and redo the process for another generation.
Demonic in demonic transformation is an adjective to describe the appearance of blankman.
*as I thought it would.
I am glad that you're able to pickup the thing about the scarcity of amnesiacs. The Foundation cannot simply give every new agents all the privileges that they can get, especially when one has a doubtful application (no RPing is involved, just a simple art-imitates-life reflection)
I will try my best to revise it based on your concerns.
Alrighty then lets go over what you've got.
Ihpkmn has already talked about metric system.
Containment procedures is indeed very weak. Remember, the whole point of the Foundation is to conmtain these things! Also, I feel that begining to describe the SCP in the containment procedures area is not a good idea.
The tone of the article should be clinical, your writing makes it come across too narrative like. There's too many describing words, e.g. 'demonic' isn't a word a scientist writing a report would sound like!
Try to avoid saying 'speculate'. I did that when writing my current SCP idea, and it made it sound like the scientist who wrote it had no idea about the subject. Try to be more concrete in what it can and can't do. This doesn't mean you can't say that you believe it could also do something else, just make sure the tone is professional.
I like this bit:
frequency seems to be high on individuals with right-brain hemisphere superiority.
Sophisticated language impresses me!
Make sure to number the addendum's; e.g. Addendum XXX-1, Addendum XXX-2 etc.
All in all, I reckon this has potential. You will have to heavily revise your article though.
Thank you very much for your concerns and considerations.
I really have to work around this. Since the information is obtained from a somewhat caught in the act crime scene that will not get repeated for confirmation since the acting pawn is neutralized and leaves a parasitic mastermind helpless on its own. Hence the word speculate.
The Foundation doesn't have a demonology department? I will try and adapt to this.
Yes, I will revise the proper format for the addendum along with the bold issue.
Yes, I feel writing, "voices appeal to people who are artistically inclined" might insult the scientists (not RP, meant as a joke)
I am also happy to hear that the article has potential, derived from the concern of getting feedback that a similar SCP already exist. Most SCP's and the events they involve that I'll be writing are based on my nightmares, which I have no control on originality. But I am open to suggestions and opinions in order to work around in making my articles appealing to readers.
I've edited the article. I hope it goes for the better. I also entered this under SCP-1972, to get some into-the-fire comments.