I like it. That being said, I am not the greatest advice giver on site. I'm:
A. a shiny-greenhorned-noob
and B. not well versed in writing,
so, my opinion is worth relatively little. Maybe I just gloss over errors and such, if there even are any, or breaks in clinical tone, but I like it. Personally, I think that all the meat of the article, the spec.cont.proc. and desc. and interviews and final addendum even, are all great and should be kept. Maybe I'm just not sensing that the seasoning, minute stuff like clinical tone and concise-ness, needs work.
+1
I really, really like the anomaly itself. The interviews lost me though — I would have upvoted if they were just left out altogether. No vote for now, but this is solid and I'm excited to see what else you come up with.
God bless us all.
cheeky
Excellent through and through. Interesting base anomaly, and the interviews flowed rather naturally. Easy +1
Small nitpick:
To mess with us?
This seemed a touch to juvenile given his manner of speaking up until this point. I would consider changing 'mess' to 'toy'.
While the skip itself was good, what really pushed me to that +1 was…
The fact that April 16th is my birthday
(Jokes aside, I loved it)
Found the interview with the novelist to be somewhat tedious, but the dialogue with the religious man was nothing short of hilarious. The concept itself is amusing and original. Overall this is a fantastic first SCP. Bless you.
God bless us all.
I bet you think you're clever you son of a… just take your +1. You've earned it.
An excellent look at Foundation investigations when the leads are truly tenuous. +1
