http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/lessergod
Looking for crit on a short article I wrote.
Thank you for reading.
http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/lessergod
Looking for crit on a short article I wrote.
Thank you for reading.
Containment Protocols:
ATF are on standby should instances be detected in the United States
You're actually using ATF agents? Or is this just a misspelling of 'ASF?'
Nothing else outstanding in this section, so good job with diction and grammar.
Description:
that measure 2m in length from head to foot
Remove: 'from head to foot.'
Instances cannot stay stationary and airborne simultaneously, and thus, they are in a constant state of motion.
Some excess fluff here, remove 'thus, they.'
Similar to the sit-and-wait method of ambush predators employ, heightened sensory organs allow instances to During this, they seek the cover of trees, billboards, or rock formations ordinarily within proximity to stretches of highway.
Got a bit of an error going about in the middle of the paragraph, fix the spot where you wanted to begin the new sentence.
Notably, instances moves in punctuated and deliberate movements, appearing buoyant in midair.
Singular on 'moves.'
The remainder of the article is fairly intact and doesn't contain any other outstanding errors, as far as I'm concerned.
Overiew: Overall, a fair piece in terms of progression and explanation of the anomaly in concern. The supplementary addendums were also a fairly enjoyable read in terms of explaining the background information relating to RPC-XXX. My coverage on this one is shorter than I typically do on most articles based on a combination that there is nothing much else to say about other than said impression from reading it (as well as me being in a bit of haste).
I will scan this at a later time to make sure I did not miss anything outstanding. But for now, this is nearing readiness.
Interesting read, for the most part there isn't anything overtly wrong. I have some suggestions:
Bots, programmed to generate a multitude of discussions, are to bombard select media and comment sections that link to the existence of RPC-XXX.
Standard Concealment Procedures are to ensue after civilian encounters with instances.
So what you're describing here is a disinformation campaign. In the Authority (and several real life intel agencies) this is standard practice. You can make this sound more professional by saying:
A disinformation campaign involving bots programmed to bombard select media and comments sections linked to the existence of RPC-XXX is to be maintained. You don't need the last sentence really since that's what a DI campaign is for.
RPC-XXX designates a collection
Instead of designates, use is. While it's a scientific paper, it's supposed to be concise. At this point there's no need for this word to be used.
RPC-XXX-01 instances appear vaguely human from afar; however, close-examination reveals notable distinctions
The clinical tone suffers a bit here just due to the wording. Try something like:
Instances of RPC-XXX-01 appear to closely resemble humans. Though upon close examination, the following notable distinctions are observed: The words vaguely and afar are just not in a clinical documents repertoire. At least not in this context.
mouthparts consist of maxillae and proboscis;
First, mouthparts isn't a word. Second, maxillae in humans are the nose and front cheek areas while the proboscis is more of like a trunk in an animal like an elephant. Maybe this is the general idea of what you're going for, but the anatomy terminology used here is making it difficult to understand what you're talking about at all.
Also, just put periods or commas here. The semicolon is not used correctly in this list.
Instances cannot stay stationary and airborne simultaneously, and they are in a constant state of motion.
So you're being redundant by saying these two things in one sentence. Try combining it with the previous sentence with a comma like this:
, and are unable to remain stationary whilst airborne.
When instances fail to detect prey, they transition into a "slow" phase.
Stop saying just instances. Be specific, this is an important information document and there should be absolutely no room for interpretation as to what you're talking about. Remember, this is an anomalous object that you are writing about. We don't understand what it is, or what it really does. Should a containment breach occur, we need to be able to refer to this document to know how to contain it and what it actually is. Do not make us question what we're looking at.
That being said, this sentence is also awkward. Try to be scientific when talking about this. Try:
When instances of RPC-XXX-01 are unable to detect prey, they have been observed to attempt to lie in wait to ambush any that may cross their path.
Combining this and the next sentence not only makes this shorter but also conveys what you want to say better.
heightened sensory organs allow instances to switch strategies between cautious stalking and rapid pursuits. During this, they seek the cover of trees, billboards, or rock formations ordinarily within proximity to stretches of highway. Notably, instances move in punctuated and deliberate movements, appearing buoyant in midair.
Since we combined these last two it's time to work on this. Try something closer to:
Instances of RPC-XXX-01 achieve this through the use of sensory organs which allow them to switch between cautious stalking and rapid pursuit. During the stalking phase, they seek cover behind objects and formations normally within proximity to highways. Instances of RPC-XXX01 have also been observed to be buoyant midair.
This gets your point across quicker and isn't so much of an info dump. During a stalk, of course these things move deliberately, you don't need to tell us that unless there's something very significant here.
These are just some suggestions for your clinical tone.
One other thing, while anatomy terminology is great to see, unless you're writing a patient report or dissection/vivisection report, try to stick to more common terms like the mouth or nose. Most people reading this won't really understand all of the medical terms, and it does take one out of the whole thing if you can't understand what is going on.
DO NOT put a ton of footnotes explaining these terms. It doesn't go well at all, and just serves to pad your size rather than just taking out the terms and subbing in something more understandable.
Use anatomy terms when referring to more specific things like the pharynx. Not if you're referring to just the mouth.
Besides that, your clinical tone is quite good for the most part. I can tell you know a lot of medical terminology so it shouldn't be too difficult for you to maintain the tone. But you've gone overboard and made it hard to read and understand for a less educated Authority staff member to be able to read this.
REMEMBER: These documents are meant to be read by anybody directly involved with the RPC. Many of these people are janitorial workers, maintenance workers, and clerical workers. They need to be able to understand what they're reading arguably more so than some of these researchers, as they will also be directly involved with the anomaly. Don't make your reader have to look up a bunch of terms just to understand you. Of course, it's sometimes unavoidable, but I shouldn't be reading paragraphs of anatomy, I should clearly understand what you're saying on the first read.
That being said, I do appreciate the medical eye that this has been written under. Just tone it down a bit. I know, strange thing to read but it's important.
Next the narrative…
So the first issue is that you focus almost the entire article on RPC-XXX-01. Since that's what you've written about, you could essentially just call the instances just RPC-XXX. It makes little sense as to why you designated these things as -01 when that's all you ever really talk about. You basically gave us one sentence on RPC-XXX, and then did nothing with it. You just talked about RPC-XXX-01, which you fleshed out so much that I'm wondering why THIS isn't the RPC.
The logs tell quite a bit of the story, and I like them. But why are they centered? It's awkward to read and makes the reader wonder what the tone of those logs are anyway.
Your narrative of these creatures is also interesting, if a bit flawed. At the end with the discovery log, you show us that they keep a bunch of stuff and it appears almost like they understand what is going on and what these things are, just because they kept them. But you don't really expand on this at all. It hints at sentience, if not sapience, which is not part of your hazard list. I suggest taking a look at whether or not you want to hint at these. If you do, you really need to expand on that with a couple "attempted interview" logs or something, because right now it's a dead end that piques the interest of the reader just enough to disappoint that there isn't more.
Overall a fair piece with a good idea behind it. I think this could be a great article if you take a look at these critiques. Please do consider the medical terminology stuff as well as the overall narrative stuff.
My biggest advice for you here is that you examine what your narrative goal with this article is, and then stick to it. Which means you either have to cut some stuff out, or expand on what is already in there. Which means: ADD NO MORE