SCP Foundation

Note: I correct the given mistake only once. If you do not use the metric system, I will only make a single comment about it, even if it appears again in the rest of the article. If the draft has many language problems, I will only correct the most glaring ones.

Your formatting is incorrect. A template can be found here.

SCP XXXX should only be looked at by Class D Personnel status.

Remember to use clinical tone:

''Direct visual contact with SCP-XXXX is restricted to D-Class Personnel.''

SCP XXXX is a being that once you look upon him for a number of seconds, those seconds will begin to decrease once you look away, acting as a timer for however long you have till it comes, and ███████████ them.

Move this to the description.

SCP XXXX is Poisonous personnel shall avoid all direct contact with SCP XXXX.

Same here, be clinical.

SCP XXXX will only activate if looking at him without any Material in the way.

This is repeating yourself.

SCP XXXX is to be locked in a 6m by 6m Steel cell the cell is allowed to have cameras on the inside as that will not provoke him.

Use proper punctuation.

''SCP XXXX is to be locked in a 6m by 6m Steel cell [FULL STOP]. The cell is allowed to have cameras on the inside as that will not provoke him.''

Don't say 'him', say 'it'. 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.

If you are to contain SCP XXXX, the use of a full hazmat suit will be required.

Don't talk in the second person either.

Constant Supervision is also required.

No it's not. 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.

SCP XXXX is approximately 7 feet tall and 14 inches wide in body and limbs are about 1 to 2 inches wide and 2 to 2.5 feet long.

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

Afterward, it just stays where it is unless it is looked at again if it proceeds into a heavily populated area the object class is increased to Keter.

Right, moving on to 'concept'.

This is honestly a mess. Largest gripes:

• The grammar is honestly extremely sub-par. SCP documentation is required to have a writing style of a professional report with clinical tone. The draft is riddles with missing punctuation and run-on sentences.
• The tone is more akin to a creepypasta than a professional report.
• The concept is a cliche 'spooky monster that kills you'. 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. 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.
• 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.
• 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?
• 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.