Per 
Welcome to the hub page for February 2021 Flight 2's TEAM OF EXTRAORDINARY CRITTERS (name pending)!!
This page is for Impperatrix,
Dr Hajovsky, and myself(
Pedagon) to add crit, have conversations, etc. I am contactable by discord (Pedagon#9927), wikidot PM, IRC, or on this page itself! I'll have a spot below to ask questions or suggest things during the flight since I'll be monitoring this page like a hawk.
Questions and suggestions
Pedagon: Hey! Here you can write questions or anything to communicate with the team. This isn't a formal space. Have fun. Share neat ideas or advice or thoughts. share a meme. whatever! We all don't use the same chat services so this is a way to have some connection
Dr. Hajovsky: When describing fce below it's a little unclear as to whether it is 1.0 fce per week or per day since it uses "daily" at one point. I was just wondering if it's going to be on a per week or per day basis since my previous understand was that is was per week.
Pedagon: OOP! That is a great question and an error on my part! The 1.0 would be daily for week 1. So this week should end with a total of a 7.0! It sounds like a lot but trust me it’s doable and the inclusion of responding to prior crit as counting will really make it easy to meet the requirements. I had to do 2 daily idea crits + 2 weekly draft crits + responding during my flight and that was a lot so I wanted to simplify for the both of you. If this is too much just let me know and we can negotiate :) remember that a crit doesn’t always have to mean a full line-by-line!
Your job before the start of the flight:
Read through this page and fill out your goal for week 1 in your tab. I want to know what kinds of skills you want me to help you on and where you feel like you struggle. This isn't just a chance for you to do endless critique for the wiki, this is a chance for you to get some feedback on your critique skills by another person and established critter. I will probably find things to help you develop as I start reading your crit, but being reflective is also important!
General goals (although they can be discussed and changed easily (I'm not your teacher)):
Requirement week 1: 1.0 full crit equivalent
Requirement week 2: 1.5 full crit equivalent
Where a full draft crit would be a 1.0 fce, a new idea crit would be a 0.5fce, and responding to a reply on a prior crit would be a 0.25fce. So, essentially, you could get your daily 1.5 in week 1 by doing a full draft, two ideas, four replies, one idea and two replies, etc. so that you can choose what to focus on that day. Each week I want to see at least 2 drafts and 2 idea crits. These are also negotiable since I know real life happens. Just talk to me and we can figure anything out :)
You will post your critique in your tab with the style of:
**DATE:** LINK <- Brief thoughts on the draft. Is it worth greenlighting? Did you like it? Was it hard to crit? Was there something you want me to look at and give feedback on? etc.
Week 1
My personal goal for this week: Sharp my skills to identify plotholes and inconsistencies within narratives.
15/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14003916/its-cereal-man#post-4899594 <- It's a funny skip draft, but have plotholes and have some unreal dialogue that force the humor, but don't quit get it. I know that it is focused on humor, but sometimes it gets very out of reality trying to do that.
Pedagon: Fantastic start with a draft critique! I like this critique because you are very specific of what doesn't work for you and you ask a lot of great questions to help the author improve their thinking for the conprocs and interview. I really like when critters give these kinds of questions to kind of guide the writer along a path to improve rather than just criticizing every little word on these early drafts (although more finished drafts should definitely be picked apart). However, and this is a however that means switching mindsets and not that you did something wrong, I would like to know what they have done good in the draft too since you mention that you hope they continue with the draft and keep sharpening it. Being able to provide critique of the negatives along with the positives could really help you with your goal of finding plotholes and inconsistencies because determining what interests you in the SCiP will require you to often think about the entire story being presented at once. Can't wait to see your next ones!
16/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13990646/tales-of-peculiarity#post-4900697 <- A SCP article idea made by an acquaintance. It's needing greenlight, but I'm not very sure if it is ready to receive it, as there are some major inconsistencies within the central idea, as characters without a real proposal and the focus on this new GoI that the article presents almost steals the highlight from the true SCP. The SCP itself is very good, even if it has minor problems, as faulting rules and some untouched background that can create some holes in the narrative.
19/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13990646/tales-of-peculiarity#post-4904305 <- A reply to Tales of Peculiarity. It's going the right way. I would recommend greenlight, but you're the boss.
Pedagon: I am really impressed by the original critique but the reply leaves a little to be desired of what exactly has changed to make you recommend a greenlight. Replying to authors is a bit of an art of having a conversation with them letting them know exactly what you liked about their response and what you think can still use work. For example: For the guys that consider themselves Protagonists, they are very chaotic. Their vision of freedom is destroying everything that can mean that they don't have this freedom. It's not a bad thing, I really like this characteristic about them, feels like a Thanos thing." what about this is an improved or good aspect? What do you specifically like about this direction and connection to Thanos that could be explored in the article? Stuff like that. Remember that critique doesn't end at the greenlight. You can absolutely think an idea is greenlightworthy and still have things to advise or question about the idea. For 0.25 FCE, I would like you to write a description for me of your overall thoughts about this idea and why you think it deserves a greenlight :)
16/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13995456/eric-s-army#post-4900738 <- A very good idea, but an average-to-weak draft. Foundation is always acting silly and there are some faulty descriptions and narratives. However, the skip itself, the Eric's Army, has an interesting arc with interesting motives, the draft is just needing the right words to tell the story.
17/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13995456#post-4901744 <- Eric's army author responded to me, so I gave them a new crit. As they're already improving their work, I'll reply again tomorrow.
19/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13995456/eric-s-army#post-4904373 <- This one is better, but not good enough to be posted. I feel like something is missing here. I recommended the author to write more about some of the addenda as it can make the article better, but I don't know if it is only that.
Pedagon: Your first two crits here are fantastic! I especially like how you switched up the style between them to start with overall thoughts, then in your first reply you provided more concrete examples by quoting the draft, and then your latest reply had you provide a suggestion to improve the addenda. If you reply to this draft again (which I think you should) I would like to see you provide some more concrete ideas to expand the draft using your own suggestions rather than just pointing to what is missing. Now that you have written an SCP of your own I think it would be helpful to provide some insight framed as suggestions for the author to consider. For week 2 I would really like to see you take an approach of growth to give some suggestions alongside the critique itself but always as suggestions only.
17/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14006672/from-the-void#post-4901862 <- I think it's the author first idea. The main problem is that they don't know how to explain what they want, so my crit was more about advising how to construct a pitch.
Pedagon: I honestly have no comments or advice on this crit. You handled this critique on a very rough idea with a struggling proposal in a fantastic way. This is a perfect way to frame your critique on proposals like this and I loved reading it!
17/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14007007/seeking-greenlight-scp-idea:para-cordyceps#post-4901836 <- First SCP from the author. Right now is just a Last of Us copy with some CI interference. Maybe I've gone too harsh here.
19/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14007007/seeking-greenlight-scp-idea:para-cordyceps#post-4904338 <- Well… It's a first SCP and the guy here seems new to the community, so it's going slowly. It has no central narrative yet. I'm waiting for them to reply again.
Pedagon: You do well here in your critiques of pointing to the flaws but you don't really show where they could improve directly. You mention that they are struggling to find the central narrative but don't link to any of the guides on narrative or give any suggestions for what kinds of narratives might work. Remember that it is just as important when you point out how dark the room is to also show them where the flashlight is (telling someone what doesn't work is only really helpful if you help them figure out how to fix it)
18/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14006385/backyard-memeticist-scp#post-4903210 <- First things first: I'm sorry! I've done that 19/02, 2 am BRT. I've got lost with the CupidCon entry. About the draft: I liked it. Is short, but is very good, but the end lacks some reference. I'm not a Fifthism enthusiast, so it got very strange to me. Is as the article is too dependent on other articles right now.
Pedagon: I like this critique! You do very well for critiquing an article that really doesn't speak to you. I always find it much easier, and honestly more effective, when critiquing something you either don't enjoy or don't really care about to do exactly what you've done here and ask a bunch of questions. I see that the author has replied and refused to take some suggestions but that is perfectly fine! As a reader that doesn't enjoy fifthism you represent a large number of readers and it is important to hear from the fans just as much as those that don't care. Well done!
19/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14008202/garbage-marine-creatures#post-4904386 <- A really cute creature, but without a good narrative. Probably a first SCP. I think it has great potential if the author can create a good story for it. I recommended them to read some AWCY? as I think it's the perfect GoI to link with this SCP.
Pedagon: For a short critique you do a good job! Nothing really to say since you usually do more complete critiques and a short crit now and then is all you need!
20/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-13984265/a-simple-bar#post-4905537 <- The author has a good story and good characters but is not knowing how to use them. The characters are very black-and-white and become cartoonish due to that. I was impressed by the author's capacity to make references and show you things without really saying it.
Pedagon: Standard great critique but I really like the addition of the section for overall thoughts. I would love to see you keep including this section in future critiques since it is really important to summarize your thoughts because seeing a wall of text critique can be a bit overwhelming and a new author might want to be able to go right to your summary at the end.
21/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14008296/draft-critique#post-4906526 <- A tearjerker about a dog bowl that revives dogs. For a first skip, it's very good, but I tried to guide the author through some things that are strange or out of context in the text. Maybe will need a change in its structure too.
Pedagon: Fantastic critique! I can tell that you are starting your ascent into critiquing clinical tone here and you are doing a fantastic job! I look forward to seeing much more like this!
Pedagon: Phenomenal first week of critique! It has been especially interesting seeing your style develop into a more rich critique including examples, suggestions, and overall thoughts. For Week 2 I would like to see you really lean into these aspects of critique and possibly even separate them into different collapsibles. The biggest thing to do though is to really try to approach your second week critiques as a way to grow their drafts and ideas through suggestions, advice, and suggestions of reading (guides, similar articles, etc.). To work on your goal of improving your clinical tone I would like to see you try to to at least one line-by-line critique on a draft and either identify a better clinical sentence or just point out exactly what about the sentence isn't clinical. You will learn more clinical tone by reading and doing line-by-line critique than by trying to force yourself to learn and be perfect before you start critiquing it. If you are unsure about things you can always ask me to check it out first before you post the critique :)
Week 2
My personal goal for this week: Develop knowledge about Clinical Tone (I have some knowledge but for Portuguese)
22/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14005917/spc-2806#post-4907594 <- I decided to give a chance to an SPC article. I can't say that I like the theme, but the article is fine (at least for me) for its niche. It's funny and tries to keep the pseudoclinical tone that articles of that type try to use. I feel that it can already be posted.
22/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14010203/one-big-bad-bug#post-4907636 <- I know that my objective for the second week was more about drafts, but I really liked critting first ideas and helping people to understand more of the site beyond SCP-682. I gave the author some articles that I've read before to understand the "meta".
22/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14010133/dine-o-s-redux#post-4907610 <- Can be a really good article if the author focuses on the right things. I tried to give some suggestions about the narrative focus.
23/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14006552/cultist-trees#post-4908785 <- A really weird skip about a suicidal cult of moving trees. I think it's lacking something to keep everything together. Also, tried to help the author with some knowledge about plants!
23/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14010615/shroomy-the-mushroom-man#post-4908745 <- This one is just cute, but lacks some character development and forgets about some of its most important points sometimes. I really want to see how this one evolves from here.
24/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14006886/project-nemurerumorinobijo-1945#post-4909742 <- I never read anything about IJAMEA and this article made me very interested in the GoI. I liked it very much, even if it has some communication problems.
24/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14008329/draft-crit-the-sharpener#post-4909716 <- Maybe I've gone harsh on this one. It's a weak article with an average skip and a bad story. It is too focused on Series I nostalgia and creating a super chaotic containment breach to show me a good story or good characters.
25/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14011580/the-debtor-king-and-the-chest <- A new writer I think. Cool idea, poor narrative choices.
25/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14011871/the-know-it-all <- A new author trying to do a humanoid SCP. I made some advice and gave them some reading suggestions.
25/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14011869/pc-building-scp-concept#post-4910668 <- Not a god skip nor a good narrative. Suggested the author read some GoI connected articles about Anderson and CotBG.
25/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14010857/my-first-scp-concept#post-4910712 <- Another one suffering from "Series-one-itis". Suggested two articles and two essays for them.
26/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14012343/demon-cult#post-4911543 <- Well… I think the draft is funny, but have some plotholes and fails within the narrative that annoys me a little.
26/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14012443/level-2-cleerance-or-higher#post-4911514 <- Big idea for a format screwer, but no good narrative yet.
26/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14012392/take-a-chance#post-4911521 <- No narrative, a boring skip… I suggested somethings to make the skip interesting, but I don't know how the author will receive it.
27/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14013118/seeking-greenlight-what-are-you-nuts#post-4912620 <- I don't know, I got confused by this one. It's good and everything, but the story just doesn't fit. I think the problem here is my literary taste.
27/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14013121/hunab-ku-mayan-god-and-oppressor <- I liked this one, but Limey will need to be smart to write it as it can become very stereotypical, out of line or problematic.
27/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14012642/dino-friend-wants-to-play-video-games#post-4912595 <- It's cute and tries to be dramatic, but fails. Needs character development.
28/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14013961/the-seven-anti-gods-seeking-greenlight#post-4913413 <- Good first idea, but is very close to becoming an eschatological edgy K-Class scenario.
28/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14013506/seeking-greenlight:the-wild-hunt#post-4913708 <- Good idea but lacking narrative and a good twist. Suggested some changes. I think I'll try to find some similar skips to show them what I meant with "twist".
28/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14014280/an-examination-of-the-goc-with-the-goc-seeking-greenlight#post-4913721 <- I really think this one would be better as a tale and focusing on GOC. I have some problems with the GOC canon that the author is using (DESTROY!!!!!!!1111!!), but it's ok.
28/02: http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-14014167/dual-effect-painting-from-a-mysterious-source#post-4913727 <- This one feels weird. Maybe the skip is too overpowered. Gave some advice to read more about AWCY? as the author is already interested on it.
GoI Feature
- Impperatrix
