I definitely dig the concept, but there are parts that need work.
1) The inclusion of RPC-200. It doesn't seem to be relevant or have an effect on the anomaly itself. It's an interesting tie-in but I don't think everyone is going to be on board with the reference.
2) Why does the containment chamber have a bed and bathroom? Is it implying the statue is affecting whoever designed the chamber or am I not getting it?
3) How do we know subjects perceive the statue as a spouse by stage five if they're rendered mute?
4) The description of RPC-303-2, like the whole paragraph, should be broken up a bit and simplified somewhat because the description is almost too elaborate to the point that I don't understand what's going on. Divvy it up and simplify.
5) I also don't really understand the article as a whole. There's a few anomalies out there about objects that make you perceive them as your wife/love/make you life them when in reality they're something else, and I'm not sure what this one brings to the table beyond the transformation, which seems almost excessively gross for the sake of being gross.
Wording and Terminology Crit:
“RPC-303 is currently stored in a 2x2x4”
Could be turned into
“RPC-303 is to be stored in a 2x2x4”
The statement above is more grammatically correct as it is not a status report but normal containment procedures, the sentence I wrote says “under normal circumstances, this is to be the case”
“ reached stage 8 of exposure”
Despite the fact that only 6 stages are listed? It says that production of RPC-303-2 starts in stage 6, so this is an easy fix.
“ Four generic speakers”
“Generic” isn’t needed here. “Four speakers” is enough to convey the fact that the speakers are not important, the footnote can stay though.
Overall Crit:
I like the concept of this. Body horror is something that’s hard to do well without overdoing it and you struck a good balance here. I am not happy about the fact that I ate literally a minute before I started critting this draft, but I think that’s a good thing considering that’s kind of the point here. I’m not sure why this draft is called “Wife Material” though. Is it called wife material cause it makes you have kids if you’re a guy? I’m not certain about the connection here.
Compared to other drafts I’ve seen, this is almost perfect in terms of wording and terminology with only a couple of grammatical issues. Absolutely great work on maintaining clinical tone throughout the article, this reads like the most horrific peer reviewed journal and I love it. Great stuff! You clearly put a lot of effort into making this grammatically correct and it shows.
Overall this is a pretty horrific concept with a confusing name. I like the description of the children’s anatomy, it creeped me out pretty damn well and was honestly the peak of the article for me. My grilled ham and cheese tried to escape me at several points in the article, which is great! The gross parts are so clinically described that even if the reader gets too grossed out they can still distance themselves from it if need be.
As one final note, I do not like the statue and will not put a ring on it