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.
SCP-XXXX in the Haron family household before the tragedy of the house burning down with the family in it.
I'd trim this down a bunch: words like 'tragedy' feel very unclinical because it's editorialising and emotive; when really you want this to be written in a cold, dispassionate style. Something like this would work better:
SCP-XXXX in the Haron family household before it burnt down
You also in general want to keep captions fairly short
Special Containment Procedures
This really needs paragraph breaks: a rough rule of thumb is an empty line every 4-6 lines of text, which can be pushed if necessary but in general, you want to avoid big blocks of text as much as possible.
No fewer than 2 6 armed security guards are to stand near SCP-XXXX containment unit and only researchers are allowed to bypass, unless a higher authority permits other personnel.
Honestly, details like "how many guards monitor it?" and "must be monitored 24/7" aren't necessary: your ConProcs are where you want to highlight weird things about the containment to get a reader to read more, not like, generic containment procedures to cover every eventuality of containment.
If personnel hear audible tapping or banging on the screen of SCP-XXXX while its deactivated should be reported to the project director immediately.
This doesn't flow right: "If personnel hear noises should be reported" is a summary here that may make why it doesn't flow clearer? Regardless something like:
Personnel hearing audible tapping or banging on the screen of SCP-XXXX while it is deactivated should report this to the project director immediately
would read better. I'd probably cut one of 'tapping' and 'banging' just so it reads more concisely.
MTF units should guard the entrance of site-██
Two things: Site should be capitalised and also this is a really bad redaction. Just pick a site: anyone cleared to read this file should also be cleared to know where it is; indeed, they probably work with it and know that way. This applies everywhere you use site-██ btw.
Realistically, this should specify an MTF group instead of just saying a generic units should be there; and it should be clearer whether this is 'MTF should always guard the entrance' or 'MTF should guard entrance when there's persistent banging'
All of the sites power will be rerouted to a back-up generator that powers security cameras more efficiently and brighten the inside of the facility by 30%
……. this isn't how generators work. They generate power; you don't route power to a back-up generator, you route power *from* a back-up generator; but also…why doesn't the standard power generation system power the system sufficiently?
The lockdown procedure will be deactivated after 48 hours after initial lockdown was commenced.
Why 48 hours and not once e.g. it's confirmed safe again?
Description: SCP-XXXX was discovered on 09/08/2019
Discovery should come after you describe what the SCP is, ideally in a separate section (though at the end of the description is acceptable). Bear in mind: if you can guarantee a reader will read any single sentence in your SCP, it's the first sentence of your description, so you've gotta give them a reason to go "huh, that's weird" and want to read on. Spooling off a bunch of random facts about it being discovered isn't that.
The chronology also feels…muddled? You just kinda jump all over the place (in particular the line about when the Haron family bought it stands out here) and it feels…incoherent.
in Springlakes, Seattle by Andrew ████,who was part of the recovery team for the fire department.
SCP-XXXX was seen in pristine condition as no damages were visible on the objects hardware
pristine condition implies no damage; so you can safely cut everything after 'condition' here
which baffled recovery teams as the family occupying the house were all deceased due to the fire.
This should baffle the recovery teams because the whole house has been burnt down; people dying isn't like as indicative of the fire being really bad cos e.g. they could have died of smoke inhalation after getting trapped in the same room and a lot of the rest of the house could be undamaged then.
SCP-XXXX serial number is 29█████ and was handed back to its manufacturing company after testing if it operates smoothly
Why are you telling us the serial number before telling us what the SCP is? Why would they test if it works well before returning it to the manufacturing company?
but got the foundations attention when individuals reported to here banging coming from the opposite side of the screen and unknown handprints appearing.
how did this get the Foundations attention? Like, did they have an agent in the manufacturing company? Did they intercept it enroute? Something else?
Also 'Foundation' should always be capitalised.
SCP-XXXX was monitored carefully by the company but the anomalous effects still persisted even with no individuals near the object.
???? there's been no indication that the anomalous effects are tied to people being near the object so far; and you said it attracted Foundation attention which implies the Foundation should've taken it from the company already?
Kept within site-██, SCP-XXXX is a 75 inch, 4k quality picture, ███████ branded television with a remote.
Bad redaction again, just say what brand it is or say it's unbranded.
The TV doesn't require any plugs for broadcasts or audio with the exception of a power cable to operate the object.
'cables' would be clearer here since 'plugs' is explicitly just for power.
Audio seems to generate from the screen of SCP-XXXX as no physical speakers are embedded onto the device yet foundation staff do report hearing the audio coming from the screen.
This is just kinda a mess of a sentence. It's one of the worse examples of your grasp of how technical writing for the site feels,,,kinda iffy: you want to report facts only, not just what people report (which implies a level of disbelief: this is meant to convey what the SCP does, not what the SCP might do).
Something like:
The screen of SCP-XXXX produces audio despite no physical speakers being embedded into it.
Would be better.
Any damage or graffiti towards SCP-XXXX that affects the television screen or any hardwareSCP-XXXX will automatically be repaired and cleaned within 24 hours through unknown means when the device is deactivated.
What does 'deactivated' mean here? Just, when the TV is turned off? There's an implication it could be 'when the anomalous effects aren't active' (just because that's how SCPs normally use 'deactivated') and being clear would be better.
SCP-XXXX doesn't have any screws on the back of the object meaning the inner hardware of SCP-XXXX isn't accessible and currently unknown.
Why haven't they done some non-destructive analysis using e.g. ultrasound or x-rays to find out what's inside?
More to the point: why have you chosen to include this detail? What does it add? It feels to me that this could be safely cut without affecting anything.
When activated, SCP-XXXX will abruptly begin withplaying deafening static that will persists until a channel is selected within the menu.
Does 'activated' mean 'turned on' here?
playing is perhaps not the most clinical way of phrasing this: I'd experiment a little but you need a verb for the static playing here.
The rest of this paragraph feels…overly detailed in a particularly uninteresting way. I feel like a lot of the detail could be trimmed down to make it easier to read; and perhaps some extra paragraph breaks to split it up more?
SCP-XXXX-A bears the appearance of a Caucasian white middle-aged male, aged 46 years of age, approximately 1.74 meters in height and weighs 90.4 kgs.
Does he come from the Caucasus region? If not, he's 'white' or 'European' or 'American'.
Also like, does it really matter how tall and heavy he is? or how old he is? What does specifying these additional details over relying on e.g. 'average height and heavy build' to convey his appearance?
Honestly, my big issue is that this section where you're repetitively summarising every detail of the whole family is just, not interesting to read. I feel like if this ~400 word section was say, 100 words long, it'd be a lot more effective.
+ Footage replays
I'd recommend doing this section as a series of quote blocks with a title and a summary of what happened there tbh. As a table, you have these huge, dense blocks of text that are just, not fun to read. Indeed, it'd be really worth having paragraph breaks too just to split it up more.
while consistently yelling to SCP-XXXX-B of the location of his briefcase.
'while consistently yelling the location of his briefcase at SCP-XXXX-B' would read better (…I think you're really trying to convey "while consistently demanding SCP-XXXX-B informs him of where his briefcase is"?)
SCP-XXXX-C and SCP-XXXX-D are both woken up and slowly makingmake their daily commute.
Tense issue: might be worth feeding this through e.g. LibreOffice Writer's spelling and grammar checker or something similar to catch stuff like this.
Replay 007
Okay I'm not gonna discuss this in depth because…at this point there's just been too much for me to be willing to work through. My biggest concern is that XXXX-D bounces rapidly between angry and confused; and none of the redaction here is beneficial
Indeed, you redacting the date -D thinks it is and the date they last remember it being actively hurts this because we have no conception of how much disparity there is!
Beyond this, the end of this replay takes us to 2.9k words into this piece of writing and you've yet to really…feel like you're starting to tell a story? There's a whole bunch of events happening but none of it feels consequential.
For example, the transcript of this particular replay just feels, very benign? It doesn't setup much weird stuff or anything or add much of substance beyond characterising -D, and that'd be fine if this was say, right after the description and a mere ~500 words into this work, but by this point, you should be really into actually telling the story you want to.
I think this problem in part comes in because of how much detail you've used: the actual replay transcripts actively hurt this because they make -D look like a terrible person who like, is kinda in a bad situation but mostly what you convey instead of 'person pushed to their breaking point and snaps' is 'person who is very happy to ruthlessly kill folk with little justification' and so this kinda, nervous/shy characterisation of -D feels too little, too late to redeem them. A lot of this happens because the replay transcript feels like it frames -D killing people as a matter of convenience to speed run to interviews over like, being a reaction to their treatment of -D.
I don't think choosing to do things so out of chronological order like this helps: it feels like cutting the footage replays summary completely and then using interviews to convey the emotions and narrative they're currently convey would be a lot more effective, partially because then you'd actually have space to convey folks characters in a way that gets us invested instead of the current way that's just very, "-A is an asshole" instead of letting us care about how it's shown.
Replay 015
This again feels like it suffers from similar problems as the first replay transcript. It's not awful but -D feels like they react wildly based on what they need to to continue talking, swinging between confused, angry and calm on a whim and just. not really doing anything interesting?
In terms of the overall narrative, this still doesn't feel like it's really going anywhere or doing much interesting with the story and I'm like.
Excuse me can you please answer my questions first? Fine, when the television turns off I don't remember anything after that.
This kinda line of dialogue really needs Hunter to explicitly be like "no" to for it to work; or at least for there to be some kinda indication of a pause while -D waits for an answer.
Honestly, I skimmed to the ending from here and it just felt like it introduced new weird elements like the -D-2 instances that didn't add much; and the use of the explicit 'purgatory' to refer to this just feels…really on the nose?
This feels…like it'd be a lot stronger if it was about half the length; and it really feels like it'd be beneficial if you like, tried acting out the dialogue to yourself a little and try to get a feel for how you'd naturally react in this conversation so you can make it less clunky. Learning to write good dialogue is really hard and this…just isn't it, unfortunately. It doesn't help that there's so much, overwritten detail and stuff here that it's just, not an interesting read on any level for me.
I…don't like to be too harsh but this is something I'd easily downvote. I could see this being reworked to focus a lot more on the interviews, and focus a lot more on how -D's character changes through them so it'd work better; and I think it could work with changes, particularly towards the ending. It'd also need more of an overarching sense of this going somewhere than it currently does.
In particular, with the ending: this needs to more concretely imply the sense of this being purgatory without explicitly saying it, and to then do something with it: it's purgatory but so what? There's the implication he starts escaping and stuff and it's fine but it doesn't really go anywhere cos the SCP just, ends there?
But even before then, this feels…too much like it just hints at generic dangerous stuff related to -D and not anything specific enough to get a reader on board.
I guess that's my biggest question here: what exactly do you want a reader to get out of this? There's a lot of surface level stuff about abuse but there's no really relatable characters or any exploration of it, so it just feels…very there. There's kinda this undercurrent of it maybe being meant to be sad, but there's not really an ending or focus enough on it to achieve that so I'm just left feeling bored.
