 Hello, and welcome to Harsh Critique, the semi-regular series where I destroy my own soul or something. Today, we're going to be reading an SCP that was submitted to me for this Harsh Critique specifically by Mitcha T. The article is called The Silhouette. It already has a nickname. In fact, the sandbox isn't even titled like, you know, Mitcha T Sandbox. It's titled The Silhouette. Just to know for anyone who's new here or has forgotten, these articles are specifically sent to me for me to rip apart as, let's say, meanfully as possible. This is not appropriate critique for any article. It generally is less than helpful if somebody isn't expecting it because they can't glean anything useful out of it because they're bothered by the fact that they're being insulted over and over again. Don't give people critique like this, even if they go be as harsh as you possibly can. It's not something to be emulated. In fact, this is something of a parody of the way people do on the SCP Wiki or at least used to keep that in mind. But at the same time, God, this is a very bad article. Let's get started. SCP XXX must be contained in a standard humanoid containment chamber at Site 88. All right. You managed to peak my interest at the very least by using Site 88, which is something that I created. But of course, it's all downhill from here. Put note one, SBAs has to be kept at four or five, not on four or five, but at four or five specifically. The containment chamber must be 0,0003 lux at most. Personnel must enter every two months for maintenance checks due to SCP XXX attempting to frequently breach containment. At least two personnel must be armed due to possible attack. The containment chamber can be accessed with an eight number code that a no less than class three personnel can retrieve from the zone manager. That is an awkward sentence. Let's try that again. The containment chamber can be accessed by an eight number code that a no less than person can retrieve from the zone manager. It feels like that could be something like the containment. You don't need to tell. Oh, man, this is one of those things where people get overly specific for no fucking reason. Yeah, you need to tell me that it needs to be an eight number code. It can't be more complex. It can't be less complex. It can't be something other than a numerical code. Like if you just arbitrarily pick something and say this is the most secure it could possibly be, you're probably wrong. And there's no reason to do it that way. Remember that special containment procedures. And oh, you miss you miss the capitalization on procedures. It's a special containment lowercase procedures. I just now noticed that. Okay, we're going to talk about this little thing. It's the little things that bother me. I let the like, I know it's technically a viable way to write it, but it's not how you do it in standardized documentation. You don't use a comma where a period should be used for like point zero zero zero three lux, for example, or later on, whether it's the same numbers. So many little mistakes. When you when you make a draft and you keep the little mistakes in without checking back and fixing them, like for example, you're incredibly awkward wording here at the bottom of your special containment procedures. It just shows that you haven't put in enough effort to actually deserve to get any real critique. Thankfully, this but I guess harsh critique is for description. SCP xxxx is a one point eight meter tall biological entity that resembles a black silhouette of a human male of a human male. I'm wondering what does that mean exactly? It doesn't have like a shadow dong of some kind. Like that's pretty specific. I mean, the only serious difference if it's just a black silhouette would mean it would need to have an actual penis visible. Which I suppose is somewhat disturbing, but I resemble the black silhouette of a human male. Anyway, a biological entity. Now you've gone too vague as white luminescent eyes. When it's exposed to light, it will either try to destroy the light source or dash into a dark spot up to 18.1 kilometers an hour. That's poor phrasing because like you're trying to communicate a bunch of stuff here all at once. You first of all, it'll destroy the light source or what is it like a 50 50 shot. I know what you're trying to say is that it'll destroy the light source. And if it can't, it'll move into the darkest space. It can, but you don't say that here. You just say it'll either try to destroy the light source or dash into a dark spot. And I love the phrasing here, a dark spot. A dark spot two up to 18.1 kilometers an hour. That's not a sentence that makes any sense at all. Oh, oh, fucking fantastic. The very next sentence says exactly what you're trying to say here. So you just repeat yourself if SCP XXX cannot escape or destroy the source of light. It will dash into the corner with the least amount of light. It seems to be the least aggressive when in an environment below 0.0003 locks. SCP XXX has extremely sharp digits and doesn't seem to have nails at all. It doesn't seem to have nails or it doesn't have nails. What do you mean seems not to have nails? And I know technically the term sharp digits is extremely sharp. It extremely extremely quantify. Your L. Y. Words are generally useless. Extremely, God, that doesn't tell me anything. Extremely sharp. So sharp. How sharp does it seem to have nails? And I still love that. Doesn't seem to have nails at all. Is aggressive towards anybody that enters its containment chamber. Anybody. Anybody. SCP has shown no signs of needing or eating food. Show no signs. Does couldn't you just say does not eat food? Yeah. I mean, you'd are do you even need to? Well, yeah, that's an anomalous property ish. So you could you do need to say it, but like has shown no signs. It's the same. It seems not to have nails. It either is or isn't a thing. Right. The SCP foundation can either confirm can neither confirm nor deny the existence of nails, but you could say in this particular instance that it has been observed or that's not the right way to put it. Let's say that it has not eaten any food whilst in containment and the period of time it's been in containment. So that way you communicate extra information to the audience. That's somewhat useful. How long it's been in containment while at the same time communicating that it hasn't eaten in that time period. And so for therefore they can assume maybe it doesn't need to eat at all. Svxxx tried to kill every person who's come into contact with it and stalks the victims for approximately two. Well, is this just a grab bag of series one monsters? Come on. This is like the old man, a little bit of the old man, a little bit of prefers to stay in corners. The reason they know there's actually an isn't there already like a darkness, but yeah, it like envelops its targets and then moves back into the corner and hates light. Svxxx seems to be aggressively seems to aggressively want to breach containment request for increased containment security. That's useless information. Just sensitive to light, which could you've said that already. There's a lot of redundancy in this. We could be used to prevent it. Remember, yes, you need you're creating a document at the same time. That documentation needs to make sense from a narrative perspective as much as it needs to make sense from an in-universe perspective. You want verisimilitude. You don't want to need necessarily complete and total realism. So when you say is sensitive to light, you're repeating something that the audience already knows. And to be fair, you're reading repeating something that the research or reading this already knows because they read it in your article already. So you don't need to say Svxx is sensitive to light, which could be used to prevent containment breaches. What you could say is, is that I'm seeking approval for the installation of lights above a certain level of luminosity around the surrounding hallways to the containment chamber instead of telling me, oh, by the way, since I know you're stupid and have forgotten, even though it was only a paragraph ago, SCPXXXX is sensitive to light. Also, your, your sentence structure in your English is not perfect. You need to correct these things before you send anything to anybody for draft review. SvxxXXX has killed two D-class personnel while unattempted security breach. Wait. Yeah, while in it, I thought that sentence went somewhere because it's like while an attempted suit, while an attempted breach period security has to be increased. Well, that's good information. It's tried to breach containment at least once and killed two D-class personnel and you have to add at the end of it. And since you're stupid, security has to be increased. By the way, that's not just to the reader. That's to the actual in-universe people. Like it literally is saying, by the way, since you're an idiot, I'm going to say the obvious security has to be increased. Fuck you guy. Test log X, X, X, X, X, dash, A. D7365 was escorted into the containment chamber and was told to flash a flashlight. He activated a flashlight in the direction of the art of the object. He didn't flash a flashlight at SCP-666. Little rephrasing. That's all you need to do sometimes. I love this. You know what? This doesn't make any sense. As you guys started to run towards started to run towards. Did it start or did it actually run towards him? What are you telling me? This is the results way afterwards. It ran at him. It ran towards D7365 and stabbed D7365 in the heart, causing lethal damage. But what happened to the flashlight? Flashlights still on, dude. Analysis. It will aggressively try to destroy all in any, not any and all, which is the normal way to phrase that all. I mean, it's not technically wrong, but the normal phrasing for that is any and all light source, not all and any light source. When light is exposed to it, but here's my problem. It didn't try to destroy the light source. It just killed a dude who was holding the light source. That's not the same thing. What happened to the flashlight? Son of a bitch. You know, I get what you're doing here. You're trying to create a monster. And that's literally all that's going on here. It's a monster that kills people that doesn't like the light. And again, it's just a hodgepodge of series one tropes for monsters. That's it. That's all it is. Biological entity that resembles resembles a black silhouette of a human male, even the from the very first part of the description does not tell me enough information. And that's it. That's the I'd say beyond the basic English spelling grammar errors that are going on here. The lack of clinical tone throughout the article while still attempting to somehow be in tone is what really sinks it as when do I keep doing this? I don't know. I don't know. It's like almost once a month. I just decided to pick out an article and fucking hurt myself. I'm hurting myself. This is psychological. There's a problem here. Either way, thank you for watching. If you'd like to help break my spirit more. I will have a comment in the discussion down below. You can reply to with your drafts. They've got to be a particular kind of bad in order for me to do a harsh critique of them. If you leave your drafts there, there's a chance that I'll see it and then I will do a harsh critique of it. In the meantime, whilst you're down there, hit the subscribe button. If you don't, I'll activate the failsafe nuke at the site. And maybe I'll do it anyway, just so I don't have to do another one of these harsh critiques. When you're done with that, if you'd like to support the channel, say the you're wrong about series, the harsh critique series or the dank memes at site 19 series, head on over to patreon.com forward slash decimarian and pledge at any level like the people on your screen here already have. It's a good way to let me know that I'm not alone out here. And boy, do I need that on days like this. I'll see you all again on Tuesday.