Gonna note that I can miss stuff; flag things which are right as being wrong and indeed flag things which are deliberately wrong.
I'll likely use strikethrough to indicate stuff to remove and green text to indicate stuff to add.
An SCP-6050 instance manifesting on August 15, 1945, the day of the Imperial Japanese surrender.
Hm, there's a part of me that feels like this should explicitly say e.g. 'in WW2' or something, or like, who they're surrendering to; but I don't know that it's needed since it's uh pretty obvious.
as well as the cover story that it originated from incidents involving Shipyard Inspector J.J. Kilroy (1902–1962) or Sgt. Francis Kilroy in 1945.
this seems like it should be cover stories: seems like there's two different stories for it's origin here, based off two different Kilroys?
ote that aAttempts to remove the SCP-6050 via painting over them have been unsuccessful.
I'd use either "remove SCP-6050 by painting" or "remove SCP-6050 instances by painting" here
Note that these individuals were generally between the ages of 3 to 10 at the time of WW2.
'at the time of' makes sense for like, a single incident; but it feels weird when it's a like, 6 year stretch of history - particularly since it's unclear whether someone who was e.g. 10 in 1942 counts since they'd be 13 by the end and outside the age range?
SCP-6050 refers to an anomalous memetic phenomenon depicting a cartoon-style character peeking over a wall and the stylized text 'KILROY WAS HERE'.
I… know why you've visually chosen to have the image be horizontal and at the start of the piece; but it feels like the description really needs a standard small image showing kilroy here too? Iunno, it's probably fine if you can't find/make an appropriately sized one but it'd be nice if there was one, I think.
According to extensive thaumaturgic surveillance, however, military servicemen only account for 10 percent of all instances of the phenomenon.
this kinda implies that 10% of the instances are military servicemen; maybe "…however, creation by military servicemen only accounts for…" or "…however, military servicemen only created 10%…" would work better?
I think using the word percent is fine btw i just didn't because im lazy
A significant amount of deceased soldiers, with a general range of 30,000 to 120,000.
It feels weird that there's an upper bound here? Like, the implication that if there were like, 150,000 deceased soldiers, it'd be too many is odd?
several cariton boxes
I believe this should be 'carton'? Technically, carton and box are synonymous, so using carton as an adjective here is a little weird
crumbling entrance of Fort Santiago, Intramuros, Philippines.
The slightly casual nature of this makes specifying the location this much feel odd? I'd probably just say Fort Santiago here; and maybe add a footnote specifying where it is (with the implication of it being added later)
and one-meter-long colored windows have been gravely damaged
i'd expect this to be 'tall', not 'long'.
Also, Cpl. Echer Nachton is in the British army, not the US one; so I'd expect 'em to use "coloured" and british english generally.
Several cartoon characters, ranging from mantises, caricatures of Maria Clara, the salakot hat, telephones, telegrams, and jeeps.
You're uh, missing the action here: 'Several cartoon characters, ranging from [list of them]' leads us to expect you to finish with e.g. "start dancing".
Also you should really have at least one to here: 'ranging from mantises to caricatures of Maria Clara to the salakot hat, telephones,…' say; or alternatively, "including mantises…"
tattered white shirt, whichwho then hugs the boy
perhaps stylistic, but it feels like the figures are close enough to people that they should use 'who' for stuff they do to imply agency.
Sunset over the Manila Bay, where the boy passes by.
