RPC Authority

The first thing I noticed about this draft is that the formatting is incorrect in many ways. Authors are allowed a lot of leeway in formatting their articles pretty much however they want, but this just looks sloppy, and it will hinder readers' experience.

• First of all, most of the section headers are incorrect. For instance, "Recorded phenomenon code" should be "Registered Phenomena Code", and "Hazard type" should be "Hazard Types". These can be copied directly from the formatting guide, so I'm a bit disappointed.
• Also, there's typically no space before the colon.
• There shouldn't be spaces in "Alpha - Yellow".
• The hazard types are capitalized and punctuated as if they were a complete sentence, which looks bizarre. I personally capitalize the first letter of every word and don't include a period, and this is the most common way I see plaintext hazards written out.
• You should use the image component for your article's image instead of the regular Wikidot image formatting. It looks much nicer, has room for a caption, and takes up a much more reasonable size.
• "Site 030" should have a hyphen.
• You should use two newlines after each paragraph instead of one. The lack of space is tiring on the eyes.
• Wikidot being screwy: the navigational text at the bottom isn't showing up properly because there's a space after the "[[=]]".

Now that's out of the way, let me talk about the article on a conceptual level. I will say that, besides overall iffy grammar, the concepts are communicated pretty clearly and concisely, which is a good sign. However, your draft is based around two common gimmicks that are both played-out and (generally) inherently bad: redactions and format screws.

Redactions are tricky to criticize, since every author and reader has their own personal taste on how to use them. In spite of this, there are two particular kinds of redactions that I think are safe to consider "universally disliked". The first is censoring information that is incredibly easy to infer for no particular reason. Note that redacting information which will be revealed later, or can be solved by an observant reader, is okay and can in fact be good writing. What's not good are redactions that are pitifully easy to figure out and have no reason to be censored to begin with. They're tacky, cheesy, and break immersion.

I recall two examples of this in your draft:

I could ███ here with no regrets.

A note was reportedly found nearby, written in a scarlet liquid that turned out to be [FORGOTTEN]

The other common issue, and what exists at the other end of the spectrum, are redactions that cover up too much. Redacting key information about an anomaly, unless you absolutely know what you're doing, does not create a good mystery. The common accusation is that the author transparently doesn't have an idea what's behind the redaction themself, which reflects the central problem with this: it negates intrigue as opposed to creating it.

I recall three particularly egregious examples of this in your draft.

in the remaining 2%, [FORGOTTEN] in nearly 32 minutes.

Discovery : [FORGOTTEN]

That one wouldn't have had time to remember how [FORGOTTEN]

Say what it does! You can leave some things up to the imagination, but remember that you're the storyteller.

Interrupting the format with non-diegetic text (i.e. a "format break") is the other big issue with the concept. This was a trick commonly employed in the first months of the community before it fell wildly out of style, because, put simply, it's cheap. It doesn't make the anomaly feel especially powerful either, because any anomaly that does this will be preceded by 9001 earlier anomalies that did the exact same thing. If anything, it just makes the Authority look stupid. What it comes down to is an author being unable to communicate their idea through the actual format, so they give up and shove their stream of consciousness onto the page.

Looking past that, though, this is just kind of bland. It's pretty representative of what most authors do in their first attempt: come up with an object that does a thing, add a discovery and/or incident where little of note happens, and call it complete. Unless you're really good at engaging the reader (RPC-352 comes to mind as an article that did it right), this formula is bound to flop. You need a better story.

This is where the good news comes in! I absolutely think you're, barring the two issues mentioned above, on the right track. You have a good concept that you seem passionate about writing, and it has immersive imagery that works quite well. I said a lot of negative things, but I want to see you push forward, and I want to see this story completed. If you can turn the hook you have here into a surprising, disturbing, or otherwise interesting story, it could be great. (Feel free to start or participate in writing discussions on the Discord server for more input!)

Presently, I would have to give this a 1/5 were it published as an article.

RPC-XXX is to be contained within a chain-link fence along the perimeter of its containment site.

Try not to use the word "contain" twice in one sentence.

Any attempted intrusion into the RPC-XXX containment area is to be handled by Site 030 security personnel disguised as local law enforcement, in which security personnel are to escort civilians out of the containment area .

"In which" is not a proper connector in this context. Personally, I'd probably just remove everything after the comma; it can be easily inferred. Also, there's a stray space before the period here.

A cover story about a gas leak can be used for more persuasion.

"More persuasion" is silly phrasing. This is otherwise an odd detail, since the Authority usually doesn't need a cover story to remove a single person from an isolated location.

Any changes to RPC-XXX should be reported to Site 030.

This is common sense for any anomaly, really. The only context in which I would recommend including a sentence like this is if you're foreshadowing the existence of past changes in the anomaly's behavior.

The chair is extremely degraded due to its prolonged exposure to the outside

Minor suggestion: change "due to its" to "from". Alternatively, a word for "degraded from prolonged exposure to the outside" is "weathered".

causing the appearance of rust

Gramatically correct, but I would recommend using the verb "rusting" instead of the vaguer "the appearance of rust".

However, it seems that the current state of the chair is permanent, any traces of additional rust that appears on the metal parts disappears after a few seconds, it seems that it is impossible to degrade the chair more than it does.

The first comma should be a semicolon, while the second should be a period. Using rust as an example is odd since it's normally an uncontrollable factor; is the chair immune to physical force? In the third sentence, "does" is incorrect and should be replaced with something akin to "has already been", though really the entire sentence is redundant and should be removed.

RPC-XXX seems unable to be moved from its place of origin, or even to turn the chair.

The tense of "turn the chair" is inconsistent with the rest of the sentence. Say "be turned" instead.

When a subject sits on the chair, the subject will describe the chair as "the most comfortable chair I have ever sat on" usually adding the comment

Missing comma before "usually". Overall, this is a poor explanation of the effect, unless it's literally an impulse to vocalize that exact statement; avoid using non-specific quotes, as shown here, to explain effects as much as you can. Instead, try something like this: Subjects who sit on the chair will perceive it as extraordinarily comfortable, reportedly beyond comparison with any past experience in the subject's life. Subjects will commonly express a sentiment of being able to "die here with no regrets", or something similar.

It seems that when a subject is seated on the chair, this one would take part in a great production of endorphin in the brain of the victim, after an average of 23 seconds of exposure, the subject will not be able any more consciously get up from the chair.

"It seems that"? Don't hedge. Is it or is it not? Overall, this entire sentence has poor grammar and should be rephrased. Also note that there's a comma splice between "victim" and "after".

After that

Not a good connector for a clinical document. I don't think this connector is actually necessary, anyway.

on-site MRIs noted cortical atrophy including hippocampal atrophy that suddenly appeared in the affected subject's brain after 2.3 minutes

Why are you suddenly writing in past tense?

In 53% of cases the subject will develop Alzheimer's disease in the following seconds, in 46% Parkinson's disease will develop in a few minutes, in the remaining 2%, [FORGOTTEN] in nearly 32 minutes.

There should be a comma after "cases", and there should be an "and" after the last comma.

you tell yourself that nothing matters anymore because in a few seconds you will have already forgotten.

Missing comma before "because".

Subject will die after [FORGOTTEN] hours of agony.

Not clinical.

On [FORGOTTEN] 20██, Site 030 detected an intrusion into the RPC-XXX security perimeter, 3 agents were dispatched to the area as soon as possible, of the 5 teenagers who entered

Two comma splices: both of these commas should be periods.

the fourth having [FORGOTTEN] has a large oak tree, origin of the rope unknown.

This doesn't match up with the tense of the previous list items, and I can't make out what this sentence's structure is actually supposed to be. "Having _____ has"? What? Also, "origin of the rope unknown" isn't a complete clause, though that's debatably acceptable.

A note was reportedly found nearby

Was it found nearby or not? Don't hedge. If the "reportedly" is actually important, draw more attention to it, e.g. say that they couldn't locate it later.

It appears that any ocular perception of RPC-XXX is capable of transmitting the effect of RPC-XXX by some unknown means, destruction all archives containing an image of RPC-XXX requested [FORGOTTEN]. Reclassification requested, [FORGOTTEN].

Comma splice, and a missing "of" after "destruction".

First of all, I don't think there's any way this could fit into the baseline canon. While that isn't strictly a problem, I'm not sure if it was your intent. The problem I see is that this draft's scale was honestly ridiculous. 14000 deaths and the construction of a city-sized command center, and all they had to show for it were 11 logs? That's a ton of money, and I'm not even mentioning the ethical concerns. Also, out of universe, these kinds of things are usually written into canon with a huge amount of effort and author agreement, especially considering the Authority's budget. Either add more to the story or lower the significance of the events. I'm confident you can keep the meaning intact.

The ConProts and description of the article made a pretty good hook. They're punchy and to-the-point. The subject matter was notably reminiscent of one of the most iconic articles on the wiki, but I could still get behind it. The destruction attempts were boring fluff with unconvincing dialogue attached.

I'm not exactly sure what the signal burst was supposed to mean. Was it alien? If so, why was it in English?

The concluding log was the part most emblematic of this draft's underwhelming and simultaneously overreaching nature. Not to repeat myself, but you'd really think a 200-day 14000-man suicide mission would have more fanfare. The dialogue was also cripplingly bad at this point. These would realistically be highly-trained professionals, right? Why did "Kevin" (writing on a first-name basis?) write like an IRC nerd? James, while at least introducing capitalization, isn't much better, and was also incredibly stupid for not knowing that crashing into a planet-destroying object would kill him until 47 days in. I guess this would all make sense if their plan was to send the 14000 dumbest people on the planet.

Just having a lot of people commit suicide in the logs wasn't particularly effective. The characters didn't feel real enough, nor did the imagery. "Cosmic horror" usually hinges on things being imperceivable and impossible to understand, while everything about this anomaly was clear and understood. Also, if 14000 people really were required on this mission, how did it succeed in the face of constant mass suicide?

I said a lot of negative things, but I don't think this concept was without merit. The introduction was engaging, and I think one could write a world-saving suicide mission well with more tact. However, my current rating for this as an article would be 1.5/5.

Cooperation with NASA, The United States of America, and the Russian Federation is underway, with the goal to create a sufficiently powerful nuclear warhead to destroy RPC-XXX-4623.

I'm pretty sure there are Entities of Interest you can refer to here, but I'm not the person to ask for that kind of information :/

The approximate time until RPC-XXX-4623 impacts earth

"Earth" should be capitalized.

have an average mass of 4.76¹⁹ kilograms.

Is this supposed to be scientific notation or are they really intended to be 7.49e12 kg?

After impact, the RPC-XXX instance somehow redirects itself towards another, random, habitable planet.

Miniscule nitpick, but "somehow" and "random" are both unnecessary words that don't feel right in a clinical document; in writing about an anomaly, anomalous behavior is probably a given.

RPC-XXX-4623 is of note, as it is currently on a direct collision course with Earth, situated roughly above the planet.

You could introduce this better.

Why did we thing something below C would so it? - Dr. ██████

Two typos.

DAY ONE

Having the numbers spelled out in these headers is kind of weird.

so we are heading right for that -5622 or whatever it is

Why would he get the number wrong like this? He's on a suicide mission, you'd think he would at least know the first digit.

RPC-XXX-4623 HAS BEEN NUETRALISED.

The correct spelling is "NEUTRALISED".

Okay, this is a marked improvement from the original. Is it good enough to stay up? I think so. Should this draft be further improved before release? Definitely. While the original version was too ambiguous to make heads or tails of, this version is often too ham-fisted.

It's progress for sure, but the execution of the story feels watered down. Each tablet can be summarized in a handful of bullet points, and the way they're connected lacks any kind of worldbuilding richness. Not only do I know zero specific details about the characters or their way of life, I'm pretty much certain that you haven't thought about them either. For now, all I see are "agent dad", "stock victim child", "filler family", and "the boss guy from tablet 3".

If you want people to feel strong emotions for the characters themselves, write characters the reader can get to know.

Now, back to the infamous erosions. When it comes down to it, most of the erosions here don't add anything. Barely any of them are placed on words of significance.

You [eroded] so excited to open [eroded] presents that your cousins [eroded] gotten you.

Now, don't get me wrong; I like the gimmick. It's tolerable and lends a unique quality to the reading experience. I just have a hard time believing that they would leave such simple words blank instead of filling them in based off of assumptions.

The funeral [eroded] beautiful.

Eroding a bunch of unimportant words is pretty much a given if you want to communicate the gimmick effectively, but honestly I think you should be more generous with eroding meaningful parts. My fondness for the final tablet has actually lessened because there's not as much left to the imagination now.

Sometimes I'm not even convinced the erosions have words behind them:

I [eroded] hope that you [eroded] forgive me.

(fun game: replace every instance of "eroded" with "expletive")

Also, it's rather unbelievable that they could translate the inscription at the top of the entrance into a rhyming English poem.

The ending was good. It didn't make me cry or anything, but I certainly felt the feel it was going for. I hope the rest of the story gets improved, so it can be even more impactful. 3.5/5?

P.S. I miss the image :(
find a new one please

Attempts to enter the region by any persons are to be advised on the presence of Humanoid structures and are to be left undisturbed.

This sentence's structure is unintuitive to parse. I also suspect that "are to be left undisturbed" is referring to the incorrect subject?

in the lower levels region

Some form of incorrect spelling or punctuation? Unsure.

Inscriptions are present on the walls, pillars, and sarcophagus, but, due to erosion and the nature of the anomaly, most remain untranslated.

Nothing wrong with this sentence, but placing the "due to" clause in the middle is awkward, and it could be placed at the end.

It's antimemetic nature

Incorrect "its".

it was deemed unethical to attempt to terminate it

"Unethical"? I don't know the GRPC well, but if they're like the baseline Authority then I wouldn't rule out them destroying a tomb to achieve their mission. Either way, it seems more plausible to me that they would see no reason to even consider neutralizing an anomaly so benign.

"Birthday Blight" Plague

This is your name, so I'll respect you to treat it how you want, but I don't personally feel like it should be capitalized. This applies to the end of the fourth tablet, as well.

I don't when you noticed it

Missing word?

Alpha-white

Alpha-White

psychological,interaction,breathing hazard

Space after commas, capitalization, etc. Also don’t repeat “hazard”. It should look like:

Psychological, Interaction, Breathing

Also, none of these hazards are listed on the http://rpcauthority.wikidot.com/threats-hazards page. I haven’t read the description yet, but it seems like instead of “Interaction” it’d be “Contact” or something. Check the list.

RPC-xxx is to be contained in a humanoid containment cell above water reason for the entity is shown to be horrifed and scared of coming into contact with water and is scared of mass amounts of it. reasons for are likely afraid of being drowned.the instance must be watched over by over 9 guards at each point of exit

These are containment protocols, so don’t describe the entity or go into detail with the reasoning for each protocol. If you’re creating the blueprint for a building, you don’t give the exact architectural context for each decision you make. It’s just the instructions.

And for the reader, it encourages them to seek out the reasons for the protocols. If you don’t give the reason behind suspending it above water, it’ll be at least a little satisfying for the reader to find out why that is later on in the description.

the entity is seemingly of African and Japanese descent has long overgwoing hair that is kept in a bonnet made with unknown materials, and reaserch shows that it might be made of the same inorganic matter made from RPC-xxx. entity alos has long insectoid wings similar to those of African Moth and Japanese bug species.The instance also seems to have human vocal cords but seems to not speak for unknown reasons.

I actually really like this description. I think it’s a pretty cool image of a humanoid moth. It’s just the spelling and capitalization is poor. Also, you don’t say if it’s male or female in appearance, or androgynous, which I would include since that’s usually one of the first things people mention with humanoids.

Also, you can’t just go with “similar to those of African or Japanese moths” since there’s tens of thousands of moths in either country and they’re not very similar. I would pick one species, maybe from here: https://africanmoths.com/ for comparison so that we have a better idea of what this guy looks like.

Here’s how I’d fix it:

RPC-XXX is a (male/female/androgynous) humanoid of African and Japanese descent, with notably long hair usually covered by a bonnet of unknown material. Despite the capacity for speech, the instance does not appear willing to speak under any circumstance.

The ocinara is just the first thing I saw on the moth website. You can go with something else if you like. Also I moved the bit about the wings to another paragraph in green.

¶ the entity also seems to have a logo branded into its left shoulder, And seems to belong to the agency known as Kabushiki Kawaii found out after looking through several records .the entitys face also seems to be bloated and cut the lower jaw is able to split open and extend showing insectoid fangs with visible human teeth that stretch and look similar to those found in crocodilain species but are geneticly similar to a humans. the wings are about 15 feet long and RPC-xxx can reach speeds over 90 miles per hour.

The sentence in green needs to go in another paragraph since its to do with the wings. Here’s how I’d word it:

The lower jaw of the anomaly features a mandibular split when extended, not unlike an insect. Visible human teeth along the gum are more reminiscent of a variety of crocodilian species, but remain genetically human.

¶ The entity possesses a pair of insectoid “wings” reminiscent of the Ocinara ficicola moth endemic to East Africa. These wings are 15 feet in length and are capable of airborne flight of up to 90 miles per hour, despite lacking the strength or size to generate the speed that the anomaly exhibits.