ghostjulie 2

(I think it's fine to write this as a new reply so the OP is notified. If staff thinks this is spam let me know and I'll just add this to the previous comment and this can be deleted.)

Okay, time to get into this thing for real.

First, more phrasing issues I never got to earlier.

+ show block

water and bullet proof

Rephrase this to "waterproof and bulletproof."

lamenations of this casing will be completely

Missed this earlier. Remember to use passive voice in order to stay consistent with other articles; ie "the casing is to be completely…"

Access to SCP-XXXX without level 3 clearance, or direct authorization by Site Management, is not permitted, and will result in a revocation of level 3 or higher clearance permissions.

No need to mention this if you already have the clearance level at the top. We can assume that disciplinary action is the standard for this, so there is no reason to put it in the article.

Unlike non-anomalous bronze, SCP-XXXX has not been shown to corrode

Far too wordy. You can say this a lot more concisely by saying "SCP-XXXX is immune to corrosion".

say that it's craftmanship

"Its", not "it's."

are noted as feeling extreme sensations of dread

You can just say "feel extreme dread" or something along those lines."Clinical" doesn't mean "verbose".

Directly touching the object with one's bare skin increases the chances of activation to 100%.

Again, to make this less wordy, you can say something along the lines of "Direct contact to skin will activate SCP-XXXX." You should probably rephrase a lot of this paragraph, actually. I'll talk about it more later.

Those subjects who have directly touched SCP-XXXX are to be considered as an instance of SCP-XXXX-1.

This is phrased weirdly. When giving designations, don't talk about what they "are to be" considered unless it's extremely important if they are not. They're just referred to with that designation without much thought. Say something closer to "the subject, hereby referred to as SCP-XXXX-1…" the next time you mention it. Also, calling them an "instance" is probably not necessary since they are not anomalous themselves and have no need to be dehumanized.

After becoming an instance of SCP-XXXX-1, subjects

Again referring to my last point. It really doesn't make sense to describe the subject as "becoming" SCP-XXXX-1 as they're not a separate entity that's always been tied to the SCP, they're just a subject under its effects. You probably could (and maybe should) write this entire thing without the -1 designation and just refer to them with "subjects will…".

they've been shown to enter a state of

Again, you should just say "subjects will enter a state of". Same thing goes for phrases like "tests show that…" We can assume that the Foundation researchers are competent enough to have performed tests to a level which they are confident in the result. There's no need to mention things that "show to be", because the Foundation can just know that it is.

law-enforcement

No hyphen, just "law enforcement".

Site Epsilon

This might be my own lack of knowledge or something that's fine with headcanon, but every Site designation I've seen has been referred to with a number. If you don't want to use a specific or already existing site you can just block it out.

Alright, now for my thoughts on the article as a whole.

[[collapsible]]

My first and foremost reaction is that the Special Containment Procedures are a complete mess. I can't for the life of me figure out why any of it needs to be there. What's stopping them from just locking it in a box somewhere and not letting anybody access it? I'm assuming based on the description you don't actually have to be close to the SCP for it to activate, so a Keter or Euclid designation would make sense. If they can't fully contain the effects, there's nothing wrong with having short containment procedures and a high risk of breach, if that's really all they can do.

But right now what you have is sort of just random nonsense. Not only in universe does none of this make sense (what the hell does being waterproof and bulletproof and surrounding it with certain salinity water actually contribute to its containment?) none of this flows well to the reader as it doesn't do any thing to foreshadow or hook in their interest.

The best and most interesting part of this, by far, is the second tab.That's where you're using your concept to its full potential. The imagery is beautiful and unsettling, it gets you invested in the narrator, you've really got the makings of a fantastic article here.

The problem— the huge, overarching problem of this article— is the pacing. You've pumped the special procedures, the description, and to a lesser extent your addendum, full of unnecessary fluff. It bores the hell out of the reader before they can get to the actual meat of the article.