My concern with this essay at a very high level, (as I told lev in private but I'll reiterate here for the sake of responding to this), is that I think it leaves the wrong impression as to what people should be thinking about when they sit down to write an SCP.
The essay has a large focus on pitfalls that I would argue are symptoms of a misunderstanding of how to tell a compelling story, or develop interesting characters. Talking about humanoid SCPs in terms of the mechanics of their anomaly and the details of their containment (which I would broadly categorize the first three sections as attempting to address) leave the impression that these are the aspects of writing that will cause a humanoid-based anomaly to fail. I think though that, given the kind of modern zeigeist of the site, that most of these mechanics are actually ancillary to aspects of storytelling like character arcs, mystery, and suspense, which are often (not always, but often) the draw of these types of stories.
I recognize that this is framed as a list of cliches, but I would argue that without elaboration or acknowledgement of what makes articles that avoid these cliches actually work, it fails to be constructive for new writers. It stops before it gets to the meat of directing even inexperienced writers toward compelling storytelling. Whether or not an article does to does not include these cliches is very much ancillary to what makes an article entertaining or engaging. Sure, including these things can be to an article's detriment, but I think that acting like these cliches are what make or break an article is misleading.
If I were a newer author who was struggling to write an interesting humanoid anomaly, but I had no understanding of even basic storytelling elements (what makes a character, beginning middle and end, etc), I imagine that I would come away from this article with a list of rules I might be able to apply to my article. But these rules do not direct me toward understanding the basics of deriving a compelling narrative.
For example, it uses SCP-5031 as an example of "realistic containment". And like, sure, it's initial containment procedures are effective. But those containment procedures are not what makes the article so good. The article works because of the way it portrays the tenderness of this monster through cooking. It is effective because of how it goes beyond "anomaly with mechanics" to this fully fledged character complete with goals and aspirations. It could be probably a little less effective, but still work for the most part if it was put in a slightly larger box and regularly fed slop. Pointing to the containment procedures of SCP-5031 when there is so much more to the article that is still very relevant may lead brand new authors to associate the effectiveness of the article with a few sentences at the beginning, rather than the holistic journey the article takes you on, or at a minimum it is just another example of missing the forest for the trees when separating minutia of an article from the abstract story elements that make it tick.
Now, I know there's the whole "SCP doesn't need a story" argument, but even if you take that perspective this article doesn't guide a new author in concrete, constructive ways toward understanding what makes an interesting concept.
Ultimately, I think even from the perspective of a new author, this is not a very effective guide toward writing humanoid anomalies. I think its hyperfixation on mechanics and details without acknowledging macro story elements is misleading. Especially for brand new authors who could probably benefit the most from introducing those abstract storytelling elements, since they are the most prone to thinking of an anomaly in terms of its mechanics, crosslinks, and minutia.
