Don't forget to bold the section titles ("Hazard Types", "Containment Protocols", "Description")
RPC-XXX denotes to an event with the spawning of RPC-XXX-1 and RPC-XXX-2 whereby RPC-XXX-1 and RPC-XXX-2 are spawned.
The RPC-XXX event may only begins between the dates of October 29 - November 7 in any location that has widespread snow coverage in the area and ends between January 22-January 30, though this may change depending on the location and climate of the area.
RPC-XXX-1 is a 149.9 cm and a mannequin-like entity with an empty eye-sockets, a white complexion, and a green fur-hooded coat with a orange and white beanie connected to it. and is an all white figure without clothing and shows no human principles other than a mouth and deformed nose compared to the average human nose.
Firstly, consider starting a new paragraph at this line. Second; 149.9cm? Good lord, who are these people? Make it 150cm, Jesus! Third, you've said RPC-XXX-1 is "mannequin-like", which means it has human-like features. So you don't necessarily have to go into detail about the mouth or how it doesn't have humanoid "principles" or how it compares to "average human nose". There is no such thing as an "average human nose".
RPC-XXX-2 is 134.6 cm and a mannequin-like entity with an empty eye-socket similar to RPC-XXX-1, but wider, a red fur-hooded coat with several seasonal decals, but most obviously, a white snowflake on the right pocket of the coat.
So, it is evident that -1 and -2 are very similar. In fact, their only remarkable difference is I guess their height. So you don't have to do all the work of explaining the features again; you've already done that.
For example, you can say:
RPC-XXX-2 shares similar features to RPC-XXX-1, except that it is shorter at 135cm, its eye-sockets are wider, and it wears a red fur-hooded coat with several seasonal decals (e.g. a white snowflake on the right pocket of the coat).
What is up with these insanely specific heights to the tenths-place of centimeters? Why are we measuring the heights of these people in millimeters?? Just make it an even 135cm.
RPC-XXX-1 claims to be a 10-year-old girl from Oslo, Norway, born on November 1, 2001. RPC-XXX-2 claims to be a 8-year-old girl from Oslo, Norway, also born on November 1, 2001. It is currently suspected the entities are "related" in some way, though when asked questions about their family or any other biological relations, RPC-XXX-1 and -2 become uncomfortable, eventually attempting to change the subject. Both entities show playful and open personalities, though RPC-XXX-1 shows becomes protective actions if RPC-XXX-2 is threatened or actions that may be found harmed are done against RPC-XXX-2.
RPC-XXX-1 and 2 have no life-sustaining organs, joints, or bones though still show abilities are able to speak, move in all ways, possibly smell, hear, and think, or and hold memories.
If you are going to include the list of protective reactions from RPC-XXX-1, put them after the line that says "These reactions from RPC-XXX-1 may vary." Furthermore, no need to include it as a collapsible list. Just add it to this sentence; "and can include the following: shoving, yelling, taunting, high-pitched squealing, or the use of RPC-XXX-3 as a thrown projectile."
RPC-XXX-2 adopts an uptight personality when it is not engaged in playful activities with a human being. RPC-XXX-1 becomes very fidgety and anxious when left alone or becomes bored and sometimes forgets tasks that are not related to playful or engaging activities, similar to that of ADHD in humans.
When the depression stage begins, RPC-XXX-1 and 2 will sit on the closest bench to their location and hold hands.
This is very odd. What if it just so happens that the nearest bench is like 50 miles away? Will they walk to it? Even if that area has no snow? It's just a very very specific and odd thing to include here. You'll want to tone this back some; "When the depression stages begins, RPC-XXX-1 and -2 will retire to an isolated spot to seemingly console one another by holding hands."
You need to mention that the excreted substance is RPC-XXX-3.
This RPC-XXX-3 becomes spreadable if enough of the substance is dispersed.
Try: "Snow becomes saturated with RPC-XXX-3 and can be thrown as a projectile; if RPC-XXX-3 comes into contact with the human head, this will result in a quick death."
But also tell us how this death occurs and is quick.
The next paragraph is repeating the introduction this substance, which should be designated as RPC-XXX-3. Here's what you do: after you first mention the corrosive substance, you start a new paragraph devoted to it (RPC-XXX-3). Put all the information about it in there; how it is excreted through the finger tips, can saturate the snow, how it is corrosive to human tissues, and that if impacted with the head (as -1 and -2 attempt to do after combining it with the snow), it is lethal.
RPC-XXX-1 and 2 start a consistent sequence of events when engaged with another human being. Usually, the process begins with introductions and icebreakers. The icebreakers vary depending on the answer to the first question, which is always "how old are you?". Then, RPC-XXX-1 and 2 take out a book and ask if you'd like to draw. If the person accepts, they will receive two crayons which are red and blue. Once this begins, RPC-XXX-1 and 2 use drawing motions with their hands, yet no writing utensil is visible within the hands of either entity, though writing still appears on the sheet.
This paragraph demonstrates an issue with the entire article, which is just that it seems like a bunch of random, very specific stuff thrown in. Why do they ask how old people are first and why do they always do that? Why do they follow this up with coloring when a sentence ago, it says the icebreakers vary depending upon someone's answer to their age? It all isn't very closely tied together; there really is no rhyme or reason as to why the next thing happens or why it is included as part of the anomaly, as far as I can tell. This makes the read very disjointed, and it feels like it lack cohesion.
Start a new paragraph at "Next, RPC-XXX-1 and -2" (don't forget the dash before the "2").
a regular game of 'Duck, Duck, Goose!' is played with no differences to the original 'Duck, Duck, Goose!'.
If the game is not different from a normal game, there is no need to mention that it is just a normal game. Just say "Duck, Duck, Goose!" and leave the rest out.
Again, I'm not sure there is a need to make the known sounds into a collapsible list. Maybe just a list, but you could just as easily put it into sentence form. They're just an extra click for the reader.
When RPC-XXX-1 or 2 feel threatened, they may teleport to a random location at least 2 km outside the epicenter of the RPC-XXX, which usually is within the tallest building of the affected area.
Is the tallest building the epicenter of RPC-XXX or the location teleported to? The structure of this sentence makes this unclear.
We finally get the designation of RPC-XXX-3 as the snow, but we needed this several paragraphs ago. The next paragraphs do a good job of explaining RPC-XXX-3, and maybe should replace all of the previous data we are given about it.
Once an RPC-XXX event is over, all evidence of the event disappears.
This is not true; the very previous sentence tells us that there is residual tissue damage from the event.
This article is simply not focused enough. We are given an anomaly that feels like two emotionally and physically troubled kids and a very specific sequence of events that they follow. There is no internal logic to this that the reader can grab onto.
The anomaly is interesting, but in a bad way — why are these kid-like, why do they get so depressed when they don't have human play, why do they secrete a corrosive substance, why do they try to maim/kill humans when they just want to play with them, why do they go to the bench and hold hands, why do they teleport into the nearby tallest building, what if there is no tallest building nearby, why does the substance "infect" more snow, why do they appear in these times of the year only, why does all evidence of the event have to disappear with the anomalies, why do they make noises when they play, why we mention their clothing (besides that they look that way in the picture used), why we mention that their noses are misshapen, why we mention that the entities are related, why they are so discouraged by questions regarding this, why they don't have organs or etc human anatomy, why they react the specific way they do against threats and why they are listed, why they have an aversion to being alone, etc etc.
I think you get the point. This is remarkably over-complicated. Pick one anomalous trait and try to keep it at that. If you introduce a second one, introduce it for a very good reason that is justified by the narrative you are going to use.
I hope you prove me wrong about this article. Good luck.