This fell to page 3 with no replies, so I'll take a look.
- To begin with, you'll want to review the standard format of articles as well as the general clinical tone that's more prevalent in Series III and IV articles. I suggest reading through a few to get a better approximation of quality on this site.
- You can just say 'containment' locker. 3 meters cubed is actually a pretty ridiculous amount of space reserved for a trombone.
- Why not just line the testing chamber with soundproof material?
- "Received by the user all at once"…I really don't understand what this means.
- The random deafness thing is, well, random.
The major problem with this article, other than the incorrect formatting and short length, is the concept: it's a thing that does a thing that isn't too interesting. The most important question to ask of any reader is "so what?" Okay, the trombone makes you a great player. So what? Why does it do that? Okay, once the mute is removed it 'gives the user sound'. So what? Why does it work that way? Okay, so people go deaf if it's not used or they're too far apart. So what? Why is this the case?
You need to focus on making a compelling story with the article. This takes precedence over just making a weird object. And as for "not running it through Ideas and Brainstorming", you never need to do that, honestly. Ideas are just that: ideas. They're good and they're bad. But the articles that come from them need to have a proper execution or no matter what they won't be worth reading.
