Leveritas Staff posts/feedback

You're not supposed to be here =]



Measurements shouldn't be included unless they are essential to containment. E.g., it's okay to say 'standard' and you don't need to include the measurements at all, as that can actually cause more trouble and questions more often than not.

To start off, your formatting is incorrectly done, which automatically makes the piece look lazy because it's one of the absolute basics for a typical SCP article. Please use the template available in the How to Write an SCP Guide for the correct formatting code, remember to capitalize and bold all the headings correctly, put a space after the colon, and remember the Item #: heading.

Measurements aren't needed in the containment procedures unless it's absolutely vital information. IE: if you use the wrong measurements, the scip will escape/perform damage/affect people/etc.

The description is nightmarish to read when it's just one wall of text. Find logical places to break it up into smaller paragraphs for ease of reading.

Move this to the Containment Procedures.

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 materials.

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.

You don't need to place a ''pending class change'' in an SCP file. If it changes, it gets changed.

Mobile Task Forces are composed of highly trained professionals, equipped and able to quickly adapt to a new situation. Even in the case of a containment breach, or an unexpected turn of events during recovery, it's unlikely a group of them will get outright slaughtered. SCP-1105 Recovery Log is a good example of how such an operation might look. Also, last time I looked, Darwin Awards weren't sold in the horror section either, and as such I suspect most people view morons dying due to their stupidity as somewhat amusing rather than scary.

Check with an [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/expert-witnesses |expert witness]]] if this is actually possible.

Capitalise ''Foundation''.

Why would guards be necessary if the thing is already contained? This is a huge waste of man-hours. 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.

Titanium is a cliche that's used enough for its own [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-022-j |Joke SCP.]]] We can use other, cheaper materials that work just as well. People assume titanium is indestructible, a super metal. It is not.

Titanium is enough of a cliche that it has its own [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-022-j |joke SCP]]]. If you're using pure titanium, aluminium would be a better containment. As such, designing a containment cell with titanium walls makes about no sense. You aren't getting the value for your money, and the only people it'll impress are those with no idea what you are talking about.

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 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.

Most readers groan at cubical rooms are a bit, since they would be unnecessarily difficult to build. And the ceiling ends up being ridiculously high.

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.

This is one sentence. Break them up into multiple for ease of reading.

You'll get downvoted immediately for this. SCP objects aren't Foundation employees. They don't get a security clearance, and they definitely shouldn't be allowed to go wherever they want. You might see old articles from 8+ years ago that have this; it's no longer the case these days.

Your formatting is incorrect. A template can be found [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/how-to-write-an-scp |here.]]]

**Item #:** SCP-XXXX

**Object Class:** Safe/Euclid/Keter (indicate which class)

**Special Containment Procedures:** [Paragraphs explaining the procedures]

**Description:** [Paragraphs explaining the description]

Avoid saying 'at all times', since it's the default state. Only state exceptions if they apply.

Don't censor information in the Special Containment Procedures. Think about it: In-universe, this doesn't make sense because if I'm supposed to learn how to contain something successfully, I need to have complete information.


Let's take a look at this, author.

[[collapsible show="+ Line-by-line" hide="- Close"]]


[[collapsible show="+ Concept" hide="- Close"]]


Feedback over, good luck!

Avoid using fluff text like "To ensure safety" to justify containment. In-universe, it's assumed that all instructions are there for a good reason. If you're building an IKEA bookshelf, you don't need to know that the screws are in place to hold the shelves together. You just need to know where the screws go.

Since the Foundation is an international organisation, we use the metric system. Use metres, centimetres and kilometres.

Finally, the crosslinks. This is a bad idea. Crosslinks aren't forbidden or looked down upon if they are done correctly and add to the story. The ones here do not. You reference SCPs randomly and they don't contribute in any way to the plot. If you could replace the SCP number with a blackbox and it wouldn't change much, you probably shouldn't be crosslinking.

Avoid naming specific personnel. If you name someone specifically but they are unavailable in-universe, personnel won't know who to address instead. This is especially true if you //then// proceed to blackbar it anyway, because we won't know who to talk to.

In-universe, it doesn't make sense for a single person to be the point of contact for all research done on a single item. If that person is injured, killed, or otherwise incapacitated then all research is stonewalled until someone else can take over, and then we have to update all documentation related to it, which just causes an immense amount of confusion. It's far better to mention things like "Senior Researchers" or "Site Directors", titles instead of names.

Out-of-universe, any specific name in the Procedures section a) violates the nameless/faceless theme of the Foundation and therefore feels out of place, and b) looks like a self-insert whether that was your intention or not.

I feel like this crosslink is a little hamfisted. Avoid crosslinking to popular articles unless it makes the narrative better, because otherwise people are going to feel that you're trying to use the popularity of the well-known article to boost your own.

Don't say 'the creature' or 'the subject'. Designate it 'SCP-XXXX' or 'it'.

So you know, compulsion as an approach isn't particularly interesting on its own anymore, given how many times SCPs with that effect have been written. Take a look at the articles [http://www.scp-wiki.net/system:page-tags/tag/compulsion#pages tagged with "compulsion"].

Furthermore, the SCP's effect //forcing// someone to do something tends to be a bit of a lame narrative, since things are more interesting if there's a struggle involved, and/or if the people instead do terrible things //of their own volition//. Consider reading through the further discussion on the narrative issues of [http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/t-1526851/critiquing-compulsion-addiction-effects compulsion and addiction effects].

I'm going to recommend reading [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/zen-and-the-art-of-data-expunged | Zen And The Art Of DATA EXPUNGED ]]], because this looks removed for the wrong reasons. Censoring on the site is used as a narrative device. It makes the reader wonder what was horrible enough to be removed like that. That is, if you give them the right clues. If you remove it without proper context or hints to what something might mean, it instead looks like you didn't know what to write here.

Humanoids are actually among the most difficult types of articles to write successfully; if you're //really// set on writing one, then first take a look at [http://www.scp-wiki.net/so-you-want-to-write-a-humanoid-scp-object the humanoid writing guide] if you haven't yet.

That's a bit excessive. O5 makes Foundation-wide decisions, right now it's like you have to ask the CEO of a company permission to use the copy machine. Use a Senior Researcher (usually Level 3) but no higher than a Site Director (Level 4).

You don't have to CAPITALISE for emphasis. This is a professional document, people are expected to follow it to the letter.

Do not redact anything in the Containment Procedures. Think about it: In-universe personnel has to know everything here to properly contain the SCP. Redacting the information is extremely dangerous because people will be working with incomplete information.

Part of the challenge of an SCP is that while out of universe you're writing a story for your readers, in-universe you're writing for the researcher tapping their foot while skimming the description to see whether this will explode if they move it to a storage locker next to SCP-9876.

The level of acceptance that it's not containable here doesn't feel right. The Foundation contains [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2000 |reality reset buttons, ]]] deals with [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1730 |unknown Foundation sites]]] and [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-3000/comments/show |gigantic aquatic amnestic-producing eels]]]. Even if you want to go that way, you need to convey to your reader that the Foundation will do anything they can to keep it contained. Right now, it feels like they shrug and say 'well, can't be helped.'

Keep in mind that as the author, you know the entire story, but the Foundation needs to have discovered what it knows about the SCP object through observation and experimentation. You'll need to convince your reader that
someone with no prior knowledge whatsoever of the anomaly managed to somehow figure out (not magically know!) all the information you've got in the article.

Saying that something should be monitored at all times means that you have some poor bastard keep their eyes on an object 24 hours a day, maybe in shifts with other people if they're lucky. Think about how many man-hours that would take. If the Foundation does its job properly, it shouldn't be able to break out of the containment chamber, and the constant monitoring wouldn't be necessary.

This doesn't really matter for the containment procedures. You can place this in the description if you want, but keep in mind that the Containment Procedures are ONLY what is necessary to keep it contained. Speculation on what it does when we leave it to its own devices or anything like that is for the description or addenda.

In general, declaring an SCP to be uncontainable is [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/doing-the-safety-dance |viewed as lack of imagination]]] on the side of the author, and unless the rest is very high quality, it'll get judged as such.

Here's an example of the opposite: [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-3008 |SCP-3008]]]. On the most basic level, it's a portal to another dimension. We have tons of those, so why does it work anyway?

It works because it uses the 'portal to another dimension' as a catalyst for the story. It revolves around the people responding to the object, the exploration of the object. The SCP enables a story to be told.

The author could have described what it was really well and left it at that, but I think that it wouldn't have been as interesting if that were the case.

Generally, the number (#) numeration is used for extreme precision measurements that can be fatal if misinterpreted, like drug prescriptions. Alternatively, it's for legal reasons to avoid ambiguity. You don't need to do that with easy to count whole numbers. I know this was used a lot in the past, but it's not anymore.

In the containment procedures, you don't actually have to mention why a containment procedure is in place. Most of the time, the reason is obvious. Example:

//''SCP-XXXX's containment chamber remains sealed to prevent it from escaping.''//

We get that we lock the room so the SCP can't escape, you don't have to add that.

I come across this a lot, but don't use 'seems to' or 'appears to be' unless the effect or object actually **//isn't//** what it seems like.

First, this item boils down to a compulsion effect. Compulsion effects are by nature fairly uninteresting as they're just a naked plot device that forces characters to act in a certain way rather than writing scenarios that cause interesting decisions to be made organically. They can have a role as a smaller plot device in a larger anomaly, but as the crux of the anomaly it is boring.


This isn't a story, it's a story component. What you need at this point is more surrounding the effect. The who, how, where, why rather than the what. The idea itself is fine, you'll need to create a lot more when it comes to testing and story as the actual idea isn't particularly eyebrow raising.

The thing about SCP writing in 2019 is, the format has evolved beyond descriptions of "a thing that does a thing." It's much easier to make a successful article if you think of it as a short story involving the object rather than an encyclopedia entry that just lists what it does.

All SCPs are written using a clinical writing style. Common pitfalls here include excessively long sentences, overuse of commas, missing or unnecessary words, and improper use of apostrophes.

The object class is not one of the main three, or even one of the regular five.

The community is pretty sharp on this system, and your article otherwise has to be utterly amazing to get away with breaking it.

You have more fundamental problems. A large number of your sentences are incorrectly capitalised, incorrectly structured, use incorrect punctuation, or are straight up incomplete. Clinical tone is not adhered to, and the language used in interviews is non-naturalistic.

The bottom line here is that just describing an object and have it kill people is not nearly enough to create a successful article on the site. Articles need something more, a reason for the reader to care.

So, rather than writing an object like an encyclopedia entry for its own sake, think of the story that you're telling with the document. Give the reader a sense of immersion, of what happened when recovering and containing it. Give them a taste of what happened behind the procedures, if you will. Make them emotionally invested as they read and continue reading. Give your reader a reason to think about the bigger picture, what's going on behind the scenes.

First thing's first: you will need to work independently on your grammar and clinical writing skills if you want to write successfully for the site. You have a lot of basic spelling and grammar errors in this draft, and use non-clinical language - words that imply judgment or opinion on the part of the speaker.

The object can essentially be boiled down to ''a thing that kills you''. We have a lot of them, and the novelty has worn out years ago.

That isn't to say that it's absolutely impossible to ever do this again, but it will need more to it than that. Something beyond what it is, and what it does. Giving more details about **how** exactly it kills you won't improve it. Focus on the why, not on the how.

Your containment procedures are kind of random and seem unnecessarily specific for reasons not apparently related to the object itself. I recommend reading [http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-containment this guide on containment] to get a feel for how to write more logical, resource-conserving procedures.

These ideas usually don't work because there's not a strong story element, and since magic/deadly/monstrous items have been done hundreds of times on the wiki, a new one has to be ridiculously unique to work.

Right now, you have an object with a clearly defined activation and function, with no context or backstory, essentially a [http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-pitfalls#toc2 generic magic object]. I recommend adding some more to this, because at this point the idea seems to be more of an entry on the [http://www.scp-wiki.net/log-of-anomalous-items log of anomalous items] than an SCP object that would merit special Foundation containment.

Alright, but where do you want to go with that? What story do you want to tell your reader? What do you want them to feel?

Get away from "type of object" or "sort of creature" and instead start thinking about stories you want to tell. Here you have an anomalous object, but no direction to form a narrative yet. The majority of the modern successful SCPs have the object as a medium to tell a story, not the other way around.

Author, unfortunately this seems to be a scary monster that kills you/drives you insane. Concepts like this get posted (and deleted) a lot on the main list, sometimes daily.

To quote the excellent [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-pitfalls |essay on SCP Pitfalls:]]]

//''The problem with magic items is that they're universally boring. The Foundation is, to me, fundamentally an exploration of the human response to the existence of the supernatural and paranormal; simply having an object that exists without any in-depth emotional response does not fit that description.''//

Typically if something needs to be line-by-lined for spelling and grammar, that's the time to use a word processor or writing assistance tool like Grammarly. Reviewers shouldn't have to devote a ton of time to addressing and fixing the basics; that's a waste of time for both them and everyone else who's waiting on a review and has already got their spelling and grammar correct.

The largest concern I have with this is that it's just dangerous, and nothing else. There's no real room for narrative development or opportunity to tell a story.

So you have your object, but then what? Where do you want to go with that? What story do you want to tell your reader? What do you want them to feel?

Just making an object with an anomalous properties and nothing else is more of an entry on the [http://www.scp-wiki.net/log-of-anomalous-items log of anomalous items] than an SCP object that would merit special Foundation containment.

Who made it? Was is made at all? If it was, for what reason? Where and how did we find it?

I would say that the largest problem your draft is currently facing is that it's not delivering a narrative to the reader. In general, people expect 3000-series entries to be more than a pure documentation of an anomalous thing, but to also tell a story through the SCP document format. This is often done by including interviews, testing logs, recovery logs, and other addenda, but those are by no means the only ways to go about it. Even if you want to keep story minimal, what you do need is a hook, something to grab the reader and make them care about the SCP. A narrative is one way to do this, but it's not the only way. With 'hook' I mean a good origin, an interesting reaction to it from Foundation personnel, things like that.

Firstly, this object sounds like a compulsion object. The problem with compulsion object is it has been done [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/system:page-tags/tag/compulsion |to death]]] by this point. It doesn't mean it can be never done again, but it's generally considered much more scary the things people //choose// to do, not the things they're //forced// to do.

It seems like you've chosen to write this SCP to primarily be the most dangerous object it can possibly be, which overtakes the narrative with 'look how dangerous this thing is!'. After reading your draft here, I get the feeling that you're just trying to create a dangerous object, not a SCP with an interesting narrative. All the and details of how much it kills people overtakes any narrative you're trying to give us.

Here you have an anomalous object, but no direction to form a narrative yet. We have a lot of anomalous objects, so adding a new one requires it to be very unique or have a very good hook. With 'hook' I mean a good backstory, an interesting reaction to it from Foundation personnel, things like that.

Spooky monsters were a common trope back in series 1, but the site has evolved significantly since then. If you want to continue, I suggest you pick one anomalous aspect to focus on and discard the others. Focus on characterising the entity and building a narrative around it through backstory, interactions with Foundation staff, etc. You may want to try a different concept though, as writing a humanoid monster is difficult for even veteran writers due to the need for a novel twist and execution.

As it stands now, there are still serious grammatical and tonal errors. However, I think the most pressing matter is that too much time is spent painstakingly describing the creature rather than in making it interesting. Knowing every centimetre of a humanoid can paint a gruesome picture, if readers can come up with one, but it doesn't make it interesting.

It just feels like it was written by someone who was trying to write something Cool, but the fact that it feels like that was why it was written is what keeps it from being actually Cool. It feels like it's trying too hard.

You need a way to make this character stand out. Working with humanoids, the best way to make them shine is to give them a personality. Flaws. A story. These ideas you have are the markings of good plans for the anomaly, but the anomaly shouldn't be the entire focus of your article.

Who is this entity? Why does it act this way? Where did it start? What is its story?

I think with this, you worked very hard on making something that would seem scary or impressive to the Foundation, but because it feels too much like it's supposed to be scary, it doesn't have the intended effect.

Whilst it's all fun and good making an ultra-powerful dude, it ultimately doesn't make for an interesting character. SCP articles are short stories told through professional documents. A story needs some kind of conflict in order to engage a reader. How can you present a relatable and intriguing conflict when your main character is so ridiculously overpowered that nothing can touch him?

Why does this thing exist? Why does it have these properties? What makes it different story-wise from any other monster already on the mainlist?

You have some issues with clinical tone. I recommend reading [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/clinical-tone-declassified |Clinical Tone: Declassified]]] to get a better understanding on the style of writing we look for in SCP articles.

This is unfortunately a pretty common trap of SCP drafts to fall into, the 'magic object'. A somewhat common archetype in Series 1, but it's fallen out of favor, giving way to more complex documents and stories. The article doesn't really seem have much more depth than a containment procedure, brief description, and testing with rough answers of what you already provided.

Don't think about an SCP being an object of set of objects. Think of it as a story told through a really weird format. The object plays a role in that story, but it's not the story itself.

Deeper background would be necessary to make this idea work. Don't focus on the object itself - focus on the story. Who made it? Why was it made? Did it work as intended? How did the Foundation find it? Answers to questions like these should be a significant portion, if not most of your SCP. Take a look at Series 3 and after for good examples of SCPs like this.

Definitely look into the story you can tell with this SCP, rather than it just being a thing with X property. Objects can be alike - but stories are almost always different.

So the idea is interesting, but it stops rather abruptly. I was interested to see the origin or circumstances for the anomaly, but it stops very suddenly and doesn't go anywhere in a narrative sense.

Some aspects people like to add into the SCP to give the reader more to think about include answers to questions like:

- Did this object ever have a greater significance before it was contained?
- How was it initially discovered?
- Why does it exist? Does it have a purpose?
- What might the intentions of the creator have been?
- Why does it act the way it does?

Keep in mind that you don't need to give a full answer for these questions, just enough information to give your reader something to contemplate. Give them enough information to make them care, but not enough to ''spoil'' it, so to speak.

The object is completely uninteresting. And while the anomaly frequently is the entry point to the story rather than the story itself, it should have at least some hook to it that generates enough interest in the reader to continue. As it stands, it's not particularly challenging to reality other than being a useful magical item in real life.

Rather than establishing any sort of character or coming up with a narrative device to convey the story that you really want to tell, we get a shoehorned, contrived note conveniently found that explains that the reader should be sad because the author says so. There's no reason at all for me to feel much beyond whatever I'd feel when I see a blurb on the news about a violent crime because there are no characters; just names of characters, essentially. Nothing has been invested in making the people involved in this story real, and therefore I have nothing invested in the story.

One of the main difference between a monster and a protagonist is that we are interested in the hero's story: their history, background, raison d'etre, their decisions.

You have a monster here, but nothing else in terms of context. Why does it exist? How did we discover and contain it?

Who made it, if any? Are they good guy or bad guy? Why was it made? Is it the only one?

Is it sapient? If yes, how does it view the world dominated by humans? How does it view humans? How does it view the Foundation?

How does the Foundation researchers interact with it? What kind of tests would they do to it?

I recommend getting the base idea polished up in the [http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/c-89000/help:ideas-and-brainstorming Ideas and Brainstorming forum] before you try fixing the draft. Go to that forum, post a //quick summary// of the concept you want to write up (don't link the draft unless someone asks), and reviewers there can help you make the idea more interesting and give you some advice on structuring the eventual article for smoothness of reading and narrative.

For an example of what I mean by "narrative", take a look at [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-3209 |SCP-3209]]]; the anomaly itself boils down to "butterfly that makes you not care about things," but the author tells a story about an order of monks that have developed a relationship with this species and the experience of an agent that visits them. You would need to give this a plot and characters for it to have a chance on the mainlist. (Not every single article absolutely needs to be structured that way, but one centered on such a straightforward anomaly will need to bring more to the table than just the object itself.)

Overall though the primary issue is that it's pretty bland and predictable, and it's material that we've seen before. For the record, [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-348 SCPs] [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1468 don't] [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1296 need] [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1171 to] [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2255 be] [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2053 dangerous] [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1481 to] [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-1584 be] [http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2331 successful]. Having the end of the article just be "OH WAIT IT WAS MUCH MORE DANGEROUS THAN WE THOUGHT!!" isn't really much of a unique twist these days; we've seen it plenty of times before and it gets old.

If you want a very good example of a monster that kills you that also has a very good backstory, check out [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-3165 |SCP-3165]]]. This is what we mean with backstory and intrigue.

My reaction to this article can be summed up in one of the "Developing Thoughts" tips from [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/how-to-write-an-scp | How to Write an SCP]]]: "**Dangerous does not always equal interesting.**"

You've put a lot of thought into different qualities and abilities this monster has which make them powerful and dangerous. But it ends up just feeling like a list of powers, rather than a story I want to learn more about. Who is this monster? What is their deal? Are they guarding something, searching for something - are they lost and trying to get home? Were they exiled from some dimension with a whole civilization of radioactive polyglot monster for crimes against monstrosity? Your post doesn't have to answer every possible question like this. But it DOES need to provide enough clues to a story that a reader's imagination can start to fill in the blanks.

If you want more of an analysis on this trope, I recommend reading [[[http://www.scp-wiki.net/things-what-do-a-thing-an-essay-on-things |this essay]]] it's a very interesting read and might help you as an author.

You're under no requirement at all to make your SCP "unique", and in fact, it'll hold you back a great deal if you insist that it be totally free from similarity to other SCPs. Instead, you should be sure that you have a story to tell that's unique.

I suggest reading over [http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-pitfalls#toc6 this essay on common SCP pitfalls] to get an idea of what elements to //avoid// putting in an SCP article.

As a general note, piling on abilities tends to make a humanoid SCP //worse//—I suggest reading over [http://www.scp-wiki.net/mackenzie-pitfalls#toc6 this essay on common SCP pitfalls] to get an idea of what elements to //avoid// putting in an SCP article, as well as the [http://www.scp-wiki.net/so-you-want-to-write-a-humanoid-scp-object the humanoid writing guide] if you haven't yet.

What you //don't// want is this thing coming off as a biology textbook-style rendition of an OC.