Hmm. I took a quick look, since there weren't any comments on this yet. There are a couple things that immediately draw my attention in a negative way:
- Your images are enormous and don't use the standard image block that will format them properly. The coding to do that is in the How to Write an SCP Guide, "formatting" tab. Also, the filesizes are also unnecessarily big. 1 MB and 1.5 MB is really unnecessary and can be a pain to load for our readers browsing with mobile devices.
- Containment procedures mention SCP-XXXX and SCP-XXXX-2, but no SCP-XXXX-1.
- I'm not entirely sure how ceiling paintings would be kept in a locker. Did the Foundation just cut the paintings out of the stonework?
- Who has access to these things anyway?
- The description never actually states what SCP-XXXX-1 is.
Also, I was a little unsure about the second image… It seems to have come from here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/7369129004 according to the flickr license, it's copyrighted, which is not compatible with the SCP wiki's Creative Commons license (unless you receive permission to use it as such, or own the image yourself). And there's still the inherent suspension of disbelief thing about the Foundation being able to just take the paintings (that seem to be on the ceiling itself, not just glued to it or something) out of Pfarrkirche St. Gallus (Horgenzell-Kappel, Ravensburg, Germany).
Overall… I'm not too sure about this. I kind of lost interest in the read before I got to the logs, mainly because it felt like I was reading more of a tale/someone's suspense fanfiction than a scientific document. Granted, there's nothing inherently terrible about that, but this piece may be better-suited for a tale than an SCP article, since there's so much of the content that relies on the reader being interested in the Foundation's inherent struggle with the Chaos Insurgency with regards to this object (which we never really get much detail about besides "it reveals specific/cryptic information about the Foundation and also is an infohazard… for some reason).
Did you happen to get the base concept checked in the Ideas and Brainstorming forum?
Thank you for the comments! The license on wikimedia (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kappel_Pfarrkirche_Decke_Camaieu_1.jpg, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kappel_Pfarrkirche_Decke_Camaieu_3.jpg), where I got the image, was public domain, so I did not think to doublecheck other places.
Edit: I just saw the reason why. Two different people took two different photographs of the camaieu. One person released their photos into the public domain, the other did not. You can tell the difference between the two from the camera angle and lighting.
where I got the image, was public domain, so I did not think to doublecheck other places.
Wikimedia commons should be fine! It'll help reviewers a lot if you post the image links ahead of time though, so we know.
Edit: I just saw the reason why. Two different people took two different photographs of the camaieu. One person released their photos into the public domain, the other did not. You can tell the difference between the two from the camera angle and lighting.
I ran a reverse-image search on Google, and the flickr result was one of the first that popped up that had a noted creator (there was a blog about the church that didn't credit the image). Seems like the paintings are pretty well-observed!