Eskwork

Hi, [USERNAME]! I'm a moderator for the SCP Foundation Wiki. This form forum post addresses a series of common problems that I observed with your SCP, along with more specific critiques about your draft. The use of this form is to expedite the critique process by providing useful and common criticism for your draft. Feel free to reply with any comments or questions you have.

[[collapsible show="Critique follows." hide="Critique follows." hideLocation="both"]]

Some or all of your SCP's section headings are not formatted according to the common SCP template: the proper coding is:

**Item #:** SCP-XXXX

The section heading (Item #) should be bolded, and the section title (SCP-XXXX) itself should not be.

Your SCP's object class falls outside of the traditional template of Safe, Euclid, Keter, or Neutralized. While it is perfectly allowed for you to use a nonstandard object class, you should be aware that some users will downvote your article for using nonstandard object classes. This is not a critique so much as a heads-up.

Your SCP's containment procedures and object description do not seem to merit the object class you have assigned it. While there are disagreements about what each object class actually entails and there tends to be a great deal of room to maneuver with object classes, please remember the "locked box" test: if an object can be fully contained by locking it in some kind of box/cell/cage, it's Safe; if the object's containment is not secure when locked in a box (i.e. we don't know what it'll do), it's typically Euclid; if the object is actively attempting to break containment and active measures above and beyond a "locked box/cell/cage" are needed, it's more likely Keter. Personal advice: Err on the side of less containment. Many users interpret use of an excessively extreme object class as an attempt to make an object seem more powerful or dangerous than it really is, and therefore assume that the author doing so is the sort of person who thinks that "dangerous" is the same thing as "interesting". Not saying any of this applies to you literally, but that will be a common perception.

Your SCP's description, abilities, and properties do not seem to merit the containment procedures you have written for it. Remember, the Foundation is huge and has a lot on its plate; it will always use whatever containment procedures require the least investment of personnel and materiel. Essentially, the thing being described by your article could be contained in a much more cost-efficient manner than you have depicted. Many users interpret use of an excessively extreme containment procedures as an attempt to make an object seem more powerful or dangerous than it really is, and therefore assume that the author doing so is the sort of person who thinks that "dangerous" is the same thing as "interesting". Not saying any of this applies to you literally, but that will be a common perception.

Your SCP makes use of the term "amnesiac." Please note that the word "amnesiac" literally means "one who is suffering from amnesia", rather than "an object or force that induces amnesia." The word you are looking for is "amnestic", as in "Subject was administered a Class-B amnestic at 1223 hours.". I am aware the term "amnesiac" is misused commonly throughout the wiki; administrative policy has been to allow the author to choose whether to use the older (and grammatically incorrect) "amnesiac" or the more recent (and grammatically correct) "amnestic." Keep in mind, however, that users who read "amnesiac" and feel the Foundation would not deliberately use the incorrect version are equally allowed to choose to downvote your article.

Your SCP contains numerous typographical errors, including but not limited to "[EXAMPLE]" ([CORRECT VERSION]), "[EXAMPLE"] ([CORRECT VERSION]), and "[EXAMPLE]" ([CORRECT VERSION]).

Your SCP contains numerous grammatical errors, including but not limited to "[EXAMPLE]" ([CORRECT VERSION]), "[EXAMPLE"] ([CORRECT VERSION]), and "[EXAMPLE]" ([CORRECT VERSION]).

Your SCP contains what we refer to as "nonclinical tone". What this essentially means is that the userbase essentially has an understood belief about how the Foundation would write up this containment document or how Foundation personnel would behave in given circumstances, and your article deviates from those expectations. This is essentially a personal opinion more than an objective statement, but I believe users would collectively dislike how you have depicted the Foundation both explicitly and implicitly. Some examples of what I believe to be nonclinical tone in your SCP specifically include but are not limited to "[EXAMPLE]" ([CORRECT VERSION]), "[EXAMPLE"] ([CORRECT VERSION]), and "[EXAMPLE]" ([CORRECT VERSION]).

Your containment procedures require that this SCP be kept in a cubical room; no reason is given for why this is necessary. In practice, it would be unnecessarily difficult for the Foundation to generate or locate a room of these exact dimensions rather than keeping the SCP in a standard room in a preexisting site. Please either modify the containment procedures to remove this specification or alter the specification to a more general one.

Your containment procedures require that this SCP be kept in room with very specific dimensions; no reason is given for why this is necessary. In practice, it would be unnecessarily difficult for the Foundation to generate or locate a room of these exact dimensions rather than keeping the SCP in a standard room in a preexisting site. Please either modify the containment procedures to remove this specification or alter the specification to a more general one.

Your SCP uses Imperial measurements (e.g. feet, inches, miles, pounds, etc.). The SCP Foundation uses metric or SI measurements (e.g. meters, centimeters, kilometers, kilograms, etc.). Please convert your units and measurements.

Your containment procedures section uses expungements, redactions, and/or blackboxes. In practice, the containment procedures are by default supposed to be available for personnel to access, since this document is meant to be used as a guide by people who are doing the actual containing. There is no purpose to rendering part of the containment procedures inaccessible to the people who will be doing the containing. Please specify what exactly is underneath the expungements. You can read the commonly used guide for redactions and expungements to help you format (or decide not to use) them.

Your containment procedures section effectively describes the SCP being contained. Description of the SCP should be in the Description section. The "Special Containment Procedures" section is just for instructions for people who wish to keep the object in containment.

Your description section includes instructions on how to contain the SCP. Containment instructions for the SCP should all be in the Special Containment Procedures section; the description section is just for information about the SCP proper.

Your SCP contains little or no means of actually containing the SCP in question, and the SCP itself does not justify this. The Foundation would not write an SCP containment guide if we couldn't contain it. Furthermore, given the near-limitless potential reach of the Foundation, an anomalous object or entity powerful enough that the Foundation absolutely cannot think of anything it can do to contain it is likely too powerful to be interesting.

Your SCP contains too many expungements, redactions, and/or blackboxes. These are literary devices which should be used sparingly if ever. I actually have written a guide dedicated solely to the use of expungements; I recommend it as a reference.

Your SCP makes use of "SCP-XXXX-1/2/3/etc." or "SCP-XXXX-A/B/C/etc." to an extent that might be confusing to the reader. I suggest you either streamline the SCP to reduce the number of different components of your SCP, more clearly delineate the components of the SCP, or rewrite the SCP in such a way as to make the multiple components of the SCP less jarring.

Parts of your SCP closely resemble another SCP, namely EXAMPLE with regards to the "REASON". If you haven't read EXAMPLE, please do so and consider that your SCP might be compared to the previously existing one.

Things to address in draft critique:

Item number misformat

Unusual object class (include disclaimer that many people downvote for unusual object classes)

Unnecessary/misused object class

—Amnesiac/amnestic (include disclaimer that many people downvote for misuse, include definitions, mention common use of "amnesiac" and explain)

Typos/punctuation—

Tone?

SCP:

1. Cubical containment for no reason

2. Imperial measurements

3. Expungements in the Containment Procedures

4. SCP contains the Description

5. SCP not present/inadequate

Description:

Overuse of expungement (link to guide)

Reference to species made without Proper capitalization and italicization

Overuse/misuse of SCP-XXXX-A or SCP-XXXX-1 that can lead to confusion

Addenda:

Unrealistic dialogue (give examples)

Adds little/nothing to SCP as a narrative