Zyn's Crit Tips - Part I - Reviewing Long Drafts

Hi. I’m Zyn, admin for the SCP wiki, captain of the Forum Criticism Team/Butterfly Squad εїз εїз, and I’m here to give some tips on how I write crits without getting bit by fatigue from reading long drafts.

General note: these tips are for anyone and everyone, newbies and veterans alike!

General note II: these tips are geared towards giving feedback in the drafts critique forum: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/c-50864

General note III: these are not rules! These are suggestions on how to productively and efficiently critique longer drafts.

Here we go!

A basic checklist for crit is: Is the writing good? Is the idea good? What can be better?

Execution: Is the writing good? (provide examples pls!!!) (also, if they wrote very very good, you can skip this with a "I didn't see any writing errors")

Grammar (does the piece word goodly in a sentence believe you do?)

Mechanics (does the piece cApitalize Correctly, use proper: punctuation., have correkt speeling?)

Formatting (Does it not look like a mess?)

Concept: Is the idea good?

Is it interesting? Why or why not?

Is it unique/has it been done before?

How to Improve: What can be better?

What do you personally want to see in the article that would make you enjoy it more?

How would the fixes you suggest be an improvement?

If you don’t have suggestions on improvement: imagine that another reviewer doesn’t like this, and the author wants to make edits to fix that. What do you think the author should keep, for sure, if they want to make changes to the piece? BONUS: Who do you think would be a good person for the author to ask for more advice, and why?

Bonus: Any Relevant Personal Disclaimers: Be honest and let the author know if…

You’re not 100% sure about some of the stuff they’ve written about, like super specific hard science things or GoI headcanon or niche Foundation protocols!

You’re a new reviewer, or you haven’t seen this kind of draft before!

You have a very specific kind of favorite/headcanon that others in the audience might not have!









And now we get to the type-specific things to include!





SCP-specific crit tips!

+ show block – hide block For these, let the author know how you think they did for each of these sections. If you find errors, provide examples of what to fix and maybe link them some Guide Hub pages for learning how to fix those things in the future. Containment. Are all the instructions reasonable? Common errors to check for: Specific material requests that would be crazy ass expensive. Specific measurements for no reason. Giving an entity everything it wants. Requiring way, way too many guards.

Clinical Tone. Does it sound like a professional writing? Common errors to check for: Overly casual language with video-game/RPG words. Overly technical language with a ton of specific science phrases dropped with no explanation. Overly flowery language with long multi-syllable words that aren’t really needed. Too many subjective words like "amazingly" or "gargantuan". Just give the facts.

Check your science. Is this actually close to IRL science? Common errors to check for: A ton of information in the article that no one would be able to figure out unless they were told ahead of time how the SCP anomaly worked. Scientists acting dumb. Interviewers acting dumb. Things added to sound cool but actually are silly to use in context (obsidian is brittle. Don't build a box out of it).







Tale-specific crit tips!

+ show block – hide block Just answer the questions basically! Pacing. Are there any points where I want to skip ahead because there's too many words to describe something small? Or points where I need to reread because there are so few words that I feel like I missed something? Characterization. Are these characters well-developed, or are they kind of overly simple? Do I care about the characters enough to want to read more about their story? If there are different characters, are they distinguishable from each other, to the point where I could give my own description of them? Plot. Pretty basic. Do I actually like the story? Are there parts I want to know more about, or parts I feel like can be trimmed out?





GoI format-specific crit tips!

+ show block – hide block Just answer the questions basically! Does it seem consistent with other GoI formats? I mean, honestly, GoI formats are tough to critique. But typically most GoI formats have similar portrayals of the GoI and similar formatting. Does this GoI format seem like it fits in well with the other existing ones? Does it make you excited about the GoI? If you’ve never read anything about this GoI, is the page still fun to read? Why? If you’ve read plenty about the GoI, does this piece do that GoI justice? Why?









Okay, let’s bring it all together!

Here’s a quick template for the general things to do! Feel free to mix it up as you like! Ideally, you’d be writing the critique after reading the entire draft, but you can totally write it in pieces as you read. And again, even if you just write about a sentence for each of these questions, that’s enough for a solid crit.

+ show block – hide block grammar good? mechanics good? formatting good? [SCP: containment, clinical tone, check science] OR [Tale: pacing, characterization, style] OR [GoI-format: is fit with other works? is make me the excite?] is interesting? why? is unique? why? what fixes do I want to see? how would those fixes help? OR what should the author keep for sure? who should the author reach out to for veteran help? [IF YOU WANT] what things are unfamiliar to me here? does this clash with my headcanon?

And here are some critiques I wrote about non-existent drafts, as an example of how to use the above format.

+ show block – hide block Example SCP draft critique: Okay, here we go. There are a fair number of writing hiccups here and there: remember to capitalize "Foundation" when using it as a proper noun, personnel is plural and not singular (so it's either "personnel are" or "a personnel member is"), and so on. Generally, the number (#) numeration is used for extreme precision measurements that can be fatal if misinterpreted, and you don't need to do that with easy to count whole numbers. Remember to put a line space between your paragraphs so they're not all squished together. And so on. The containment is a little excessive. I don't think you need to specify three basic locks on the carrying case (why not just one primary and one backup?) since this is a relatively low-concern anomaly, and it definitely doesn't need an entire containment chamber to itself. A standard secure locker is fine. Tone-wise you could improve a bit when describing the object's abilities; currently it comes off as a D&D manual kind of item (replace phrases like "beam of radiant energy" and "necrotic beings" with terms that IRL researchers would use), rather than something described by a scientist. Then it gets harder to take seriously. Also, remember to use metric measurements only. I'm not too sure about this. I like the fact that it's set up to be this holy relic of someone really important, but gets unpredictable when it turns out to be a cheap knockoff that backfires when put under pressure. But I also feel like this seems similar to the plot of a YA novel Convenient Reference Named Here, specifically the amulet in the second half of the book. Personally, I'd like to see some more background on why this thing is the way it is, so it's not just another random thing that does a thing. Is the item itself sapient or is there something inhabiting it? Maybe give a few more behavioral or story cues, so the audience relates more to the object or who might have caused it to become what it is now? Example tale draft critique: Okay, so the writing is pretty shaky. You have a lot of overly wordy sentences (especially the ones with two or more commas) that can be broken up into smaller sentences so they don't read like run-ons. And several other simple errors like confusing "it's" with "its" ("it's" means "it is") and not correctly capitalizing at the start of dialogue. Usually a word processing program or writing assistance tool like Grammarly (which is available for free) will help with finding those issues. The beginning of the tale is a good setup for the setting, but the middle really starts to drag because it's just a lot of description to say that Pikachu is having trouble finding an empty seat at the Pokemon Cafe, and at that point I start to get bored since nothing is happening. Also, I get tripped up when reading sometimes when you change scenes, so maybe work on adding some transitions when there are time and place changes. The characters aren't super different for me; they all kind of talk with the same speech patterns and they don't have enough non-verbal actions to differentiate them enough from each other. Plot-wise the tale needs some work. I wanted to know more about the Mega Stone and why it was in the cave in the first place, and why Pikachu took it for his friend who couldn't even use it. Overall, I wasn't super interested in this since I didn't really connect with any of the characters and their story just seemed a little generic for me? Also, I feel like I've seen this sort of premise before, but with a different Pokemon. Definitely needs some workshopping for polishing up the writing, but I feel like this might work if you focused more on the Mega Stone discovery and less on the time at the Cafe. That way you can develop the characters more in a universe-specific setting as they go through the cave, rather than just sitting at the Cafe not really doing anything out of the ordinary compared to IRL. Example GoI format draft critique: Okay, took a look at this. I don't think I saw any grammar issues! I think this is a good piece. You really captured the overall MC&D attitude well, especially with those responses to the first duck disaster. The banter between the characters was hilarious and still kind of creepy at times. I enjoyed reading this a lot, since I never thought about rubber ducks being customized in the way that you've done here. I've never seen anything on the site or other media like this either, so I really think it will do well! My favorite part was with the Duck of Immense Darkduckness, because it was dramatic but still funny, the coveted black market item being a rubber duck. I'm not super familiar with MC&D though, maybe get some MC&D authors to take a look at this before you post? Also, I personally headcanon the Foundation as more competent, so I don't think they would have given up after the incident with the ice duck. But that might just be me! Overall, great job!









Overall tips

1. IMPORTANT: something something fish anecdote. If you give an author all the fixes, they’re good for a day. If you teach an author how to fix things, they’re good for much longer than a day. Reviewers are not responsible for mentioning and fixing every single problem in a draft, especially if there are a lot of simple errors that authors can and should figure out how to address themselves. If you want to do a full line-by-line, go ahead! Alternatively, point out a few of the most obvious mistakes, and link them to some resources they can use for self-study.

2. Reviewers do not need to be veterans. If you’re a site member, you’ve got a vote you can cast on the page when the author mainlists their stuff. Even if you don’t know the audience super well, chances are good that there’s at least a few other people on the site who might vote the same way as you. If you feel comfortable writing a review that covers all the basics, by all means, get your reviewing practice in.

3. Reviews do not need to take a long time to write. Critique needs to be helpful, but there’s no minimum wordcount or minimum time requirement for a good critique. Practice figuring out the main points and commenting on those, rather than every little thing. If you don't know how to fix something, be honest about it.

4. Conceptualization is important. A lot of the time, drafts are majorly held back by a shaky idea that should be improved first, before the author gets caught up in things like fixing typos or picking words. If you review a draft that needs some idea/setup revamping before you’d want to read it again, encourage the author to use the Ideas and Brainstorming forum: http://www.scp-wiki.net/forum/c-89000/help:ideas-and-brainstorming or the IRC chat to hash out a concept that the audience will get more excited about.

5. Reviewing should feel fulfilling. Never force yourself to critique if you’re exhausted, grumpy, pressed for time, just not feeling it, etc. A reviewer should never feel like they’re obligated to review just because someone repeatedly asks. Hopefully you are having fun when you read a draft that you really like or work with an author who’s super cool!

Remember, helpful reviews keep the community alive and thriving!



