I like this article and still think it's the best out of all of them, however, I will say that I think it should be revised effectively as soon as possible. What I like most about this article is the fact that it starts off with a decent enough idea itself and TRUSTS the viewer to come to its own conclusion. It has decent visuals, yadda yadda yadda.
I was very disappointed to see not everyone liked it as much as I did, but checking the crit thread, there were just valid points ignored. I think some readers expect all answers to magically appear, but Denial is right in that it's a remarkably uneventful article. Jimmy goes further that a lot of the redactions seem unnecessary and that the article never really develops itself past the initial idea to any larger theme to connect the anomaly with the place. There's so much you could do with this idea, and it's just not given it. It's okay to leave out detail, but this anomaly feels stunted as a work of fiction and leads nowhere, which, I can mostly get over but understand if others cannot.
Creating mystique through an obscured story via implication and making an incomplete story are two different things. The last thing I wanna say about it is that admittedly, upon second reading, it's very wordy when it could be more straightforward. The crit you got definitely did not take that into effect, but understand that clinical tone and formal writing are not the same: Clinical tone is to the point, efficient and precise. Formal writing is clear throat, willing to be wordier to be clearer. You have written the ladder instead of the former (this post was written in the ladder instead of the former, btw).
