As the summary says, this is my first attempt at writing an SCP article. I've read a lot about drafting them and using [redacted] and [data expunged], but I'm still pretty shaky on it all. Let me know what you guys think!
Nifty object, interesting effect, although it seems reminiscent of SCP-205. Your tone isn't too bad, either.
The bad? Your expungement and redaction are useless. These censorship tools can really amp up some tension in an article, but they need some context to let the reader have some general, ballpark idea about what was removed from the article. "The object will [REDACTED] and its effects are [DATA EXPUNGED]." The redaction can be "buy you a giant tub of pudding" and the expungement can be "happiness and an upset tummy if you eat too much".
Show, don't tell. By redacting anything, you're suggesting that there's some juicy nugget hidden underneath. Audiences don't like being deprived of juicy nuggets. They LOVE their juicy nuggets. And juicy nuggets can go great with secret sauce, but if you offer nothing BUT secret sauce… well, that's not a juicy nugget, is it? :)
Thanks for the advice! I agree on the censorship. I'll probably either remove the instances or perhaps try to make them a bit more specific. How would it sound, for the electromagnetic radiation part, to say "as well as a wavelength of [Data Expunged]? As far as SCP-205 goes, should I add some material and make it more distinct from 205, or would it be alright as is?
The expungement basically says "it emits visible as well as invisible electromagnetic radiation". That's not a particularly astonishing statement; it'll be a problem with any issue of including a duality (visible and invisible) and expunging one of them. "The old movie was filmed in black and [DATA EXPUNGED]." The fact that there's an inherent opposite to the non-expunged statements immediately implies that the expungement is that opposite, making the expungement meaningless.
Your task, Mr. Good Writer: What is it emitting that is A: anomalous and B: something the Foundation really, really, REALLY doesn't want revealed, even more so than the existence of this anomaly? Get that figured out, develop a good tone-correct way to explain it, and then remove the part that's too sensitive even for a super-mega-top-secret document… with an eye towards making sure there's something left, some clue, pointing to exactly what was expunged.
I've done some editing to it now. I took out the redactions (I think I'll wait to use those when I have something really good to hide) and added in an interview log. I'm considering replacing the bottom paragraph with a series of experiment logs but am still undecided.
A couple of things:
- "distraught" is not very clinical. "Subject appears agitated" is what's usually used in these situations.
- Animated images are EXTREMELY obnoxious. There's a reason why they generally aren't used.