One personal rule that I hold myself to is to make sure that I put my best foot forward when presenting an article to the drafts forums. This typically means formatting is all done, everything reads nicely, and the work is finished. There is no rule for that last one (you're welcome to post unfinished work), but the other two make the draft easier to get through. Just something to consider.
As it stands now, there are quite a few things needing to be addressed. The things that stand out to me right away are the following:
- Large walls of text. Big blocks of text can be intimidating. A paragraph break here and there should remedy this.
- Overuse of censorship. As a general rule, you don't want to redact information in the ConProcs as it hinders containment (can't build a wall out of a specific material if you don't know what it is). Furthermore, you should have a general idea of what you are redacting before doing so, so why not fill it in?
- Extra fluff text. "Fluff" is the term for stuff that isn't necessary to the article as a whole or slows down the reader for insubstantial information. Find the stuff that is absolutely necessary to containment/the story you are telling
- Tone unbefitting of a professional document. The most standout example I could find was this: This noise has been described as 'Bloodcurdling' and 'Unearthly'.
- Poor formatting. This is mostly directed at your mission reports. I'm certain there is a better way to clean that up. Maybe use block quotes and timestamps?
These are the primary reasons why I have chosen to forego my typical line-by-line critique.
As for your concept overall, I'm not keen on it. It's an old Foundation site that is unknowingly deep that contains some survivors, but also contains monsters that make you go crazy and kill you. If I understood that right, I believe this article requires some work at the most fundamental level.
I recommend the following sources for further consideration.
