Please navigate to the tab entitled "The Book of Faces".
I was kinda stoked to read this 'cause a book of people's life stories is a great idea. I'm disappointed in the final product, though. It's not bad, per se, it's just kind of bland. I've seen "item that manipulates flow of time" literally everywhere.
It's not like the interview was horribly cliched or anything, how you structured it was interesting, but I'm just stuck feeling so much more could have been done with this.
Also, your tone needs a lot of work, but don't worry about that. Tone is a skill: it can be learned. Good SCPs, though, are more art than science.
What would you recommend doing to improve the article?
it's purely a matter of taste. for me, rapid aging has been done to death, even if the item is something as cool as this book. it really is up to you if you want to change this or if you feel that the time effects are just fine right now. Tidy up the tone and write this how you see fit, I can guarantee you after some tone work this wouldn't bomb because the base idea is really cool. you've got something that's attention-grabbing, with a secondary effect that's totally changeable. you got high quality ingredients, now cook something amazing
are not to wrap the object around any part of the body unless instructed to do so by a researcher.
I would change that sentence to this
are not permitted to make any action that involves the usage of object in wrapping around any object unless instructed to do so by researcher in charge.
The object appears to strategically strangulate its users, procrastinating its hostility until the most opportune moment.
'procrastinating' is not the right word for this, try 'suppressing'. I'll check on this later and see how it fares, but for right now that's my 2 cents.
Er….you seem to have read the wrong tab, my friend. The one you commented on was my first draft of a rather meh idea, mainly to get a feel for how this style of writing works. I'm looking for critiques on "The Book of Faces".
Btw, is there a way to link directly to a certain tab so that the same error is not made in future posts?
oh, my bad, I'm gonna check on that real quick
I actually think this is a good idea, I personally don't think you need to change it, but bbaztek might have a point. I think you should have more people check on this, I look forward to your final draft.
Although it doesn't bother me a whole lot, I have to warn you to edit your posts instead of replying to yourself or you will make many wiki members rather angry…
How do I get more people to check on it?
Tell them about it, send messages to people like Scantron, Djoric, Pooryoric, and DrBerggren asking them to take a quick look at your idea; they are some of the site's most experienced writers and could really help
Mention it in the chat, which moves much faster than the forums do.
Also, for the record, you can ask any staff member (check this guide, "Senior Staff" tab) to look over a draft by sending them a wikidot PM or messaging them on the chat (unless they're not active on the IRC). There's a reason staff members are staff members. :3
SCP-XXXX-1 is able to recall any details of their life, even minute details not often recorded by the human mind
Okay, this is entirely my fault for not explaining clearly; sorry for that. The brain can be capable of consolidating and maintaining detailed memories with a surprising degree of accuracy. But usually, consolidated memories get… "corrupted," or changed over time, which makes them inaccurate in the long run. So what you have is a bit of a wording problem (thanks to me). Maybe try "SCP-XXXX-1 is able to recall any (biographical? sensory?) details of his or her life with a degree of precision typical of eidetic memory," or something. Just remember that people with "photographic memory" can usually only recall sensory information, like images. Again, sorry for giving you bad advice.
But I have to say, I like this second draft a lot better. Still needs some work, but it's better. I especially like the test that you added. Keep up the good work.
This has been edited again, please check it out when you get a chance. Also, I know the experiment needs some tweaking, but I'm not sure what, exactly, is wrong with it. I feel that something isn't right, but I can't pinpoint it.
Please navigate to the appropriate tab.