http://rpcsandbox.wikidot.com/done-dust-ghost-street
Crit for an old beggar?
Feedback should include specifics on sentence grammar, narrative inconsistencies, and poor synonym usage; don't be vague.
Note: (Ignore the missing pictures. I have them. They'll be added in later during the official posting.)
I am not a professional critic, so I am not going to pretend that I am. So the following will just be some of my thoughts while reading or just general advice:
That is the end of my thoughts. My main complaint is that the large majority of paragraphs can really be shortened to just two to three sentences. The death is also a complaint, but that is just me and you don't really have to change it.
As of the publication of this article, the lethal properties of RPC-XXX-1 have been neutralized.
I'd change it to something like: "As of [DATE], RPC-XXX-1's lethal properties have been neutralized." If not, you should change "article" for "file" or "document"
The lingering eccentric qualities of RPC-XXX are mundane enough without RPC-XXX-1 that researchers believe they do not threaten public normality.
"eccentric qualities"?
I'd reword it to something like "As a result, RPC-XXX's persistent properties have been deemed mundane enough as to not pose a threat to normalcy"
[…] with fictitious ghost tales. Typically involving late-night encounters, these tales […]
I'd replace the first period with a comma and the first comma with a period.
RPC-XXX is a random phenomenon in the State of California.
This tells me absolutely nothing, it's the same as saying "RPC-XXX is an anomaly" + you shouldn't capitalize "state" + it'd be better if you said "in [city/area], California, USA."
The entrance manifests as an offramp on Highways or roads adjacent to the Pacific Ocean.
Entrance to where? Again, you said basically nothing on the first sentence, so talking about an entrance just comes out of nowhere. Also, you shouldn't capitalize "highways"
And wouldn't this also mean that the anomaly can manifest anywhere in the west coast, and not just California? You're giving conflicting statements
specific environmental factors and personal choices
change to "specific individual and environmental factors"
surfboard or surfing paraphernalia
In such cases, it's better to say "and/or" unless it is specifically an either-or situation. This applies to all subsequent uses of "or" in this table
Night (Sun Down)
So, is it night or sun down? Those are two different times of day
without a map (GPS)
Same thing. A map and a GPS are too different things.
Also, what are those percentages based on? To what do chance do they add up to? Is it really random if you can increase/decrease the likelihood of it occurring? How much do they really matter? Are they additive or multiplicative? What is the base chance of this happening? 15%? 20%? 0.23%? Where did they get such precise percentages?
I feel it'd be better if you just turned it into a list of things that make it "more likely" to occur instead of trying to quantify it without a baseline.
During the RPC-XXX event
It's an event now? What is it, exactly? A static entrance? An event with a beginning and end? A general phenomena? How does this broken down car relate to the "entrance"? At no point yet have you mentioned the subjects needing to enter any entrance or encountering it. It's like -1 is a completely different anomaly.
as a ghostly but material apparition
"ghostly" is a highly informal term and directly conflicts with "material". It can't be fully material and fully immaterial at the same time
If the driver can not outrun
change to "If the drives fails to outrun"
they will be knocked off the road and into the sea rocks below.
Is this 100% guaranteed? Does -1 always get the car to flip off the road in a single hit? Does it matter if it's a ford fiesta 2011 or a large shipping truck?
During the Authorty's encounters with the anomalous vehicle, it was evident that it did not operate off traditional physics. For instance, the direction of speed is not a constant factor within RPC-XXX-1's frame of movement. Instead, the anomaly follows a continuous force of acceleration. If it were not for the forces of air and road friction, RPC-XXX-1 could reach speeds exceeding the sound barrier.
This feels like a lot of text just to say it is anomalously fast
Overall, the description felt all over the place. I'd recommend remaking it.
only to black out and wake up in their car
Is this supposed to have been included in the description?
Site-95
All mentions of Site-95 should be changed to Site-095
until 7/03/2024
until 07/03/2024*
found shortly moments later beached
change to "found shortly after beached"
body would never be found
why are you speaking in future tense? it should be "were never found"
Initially, Site staff
"site" shouldn't be capitalized unless you're writing the numeric designation of a site, like Site-095
from the wreck
from the wreckage*
after Agent's death
after whose death?
RPC Researchers encountered RPC-XXX-1 fifteen times utilizing methods that increased the likelihood of an encounter.
Simply say "Researchers encountered", there's not need to specify "RPC", and even if you did need to specify, the term used would be "Authority". Also, why did they send out researchers out for dangerous field work?
In all cases where RPC-XXX-1 was challenged, Researchers would be run off the road.
Again, why did they send researchers out on possibly-lethal tests when you have a whole class of tests subjects for these exact scenarios? Or hell, at least send Containment or Protection personnel, someone who's a bit more versed in field work and dangerous situations.
ss if it's waiting
as*
The letter is cute, but what does it have to do with a killer car that goes on about and kills random couples and surfers
confirmed that RPC-XXX-1 was a spiritual or infoplane apparition tied to the material plane
How is a physical car in any way, shape, or form, coming from the infoplane? And "spiritual apparition" is both informal and incredibly vague that you might've as well just said "ghost"
would sever RPC-XXX-1 from this world forever
Highly informal
would be gassed up
gassed up?
This article was all over the place. The description barely described what the anomaly WAS for the first half of it. Hell, even after it was done I still have no idea what exactly the "entrance" is, or how it still exists since the only way (afaik) to tell you're in it is RPC-XXX-1 itself.
There's an abysmal conflict between the loving, mournful tone of the letter/poem and the actions of RPC-XXX-1, so it ends up feeling a bit pointless to have it, as is the whole ritual around the car. Also, why would RPC-XXX still exists once RPC-XXX-1 is gone? Was RPC-XXX just a random, unrelated road anomaly and not something associated with the car ritual thing?
I feel you should try to lean more heavily into the narrative you set up with the poem or at least make something that makes a bit more sense to go along with a murder car. That is besides remaking the description to make sense, of course.
Containment:
No complaints to be honest. Would've been nice to see the previous containment protocols to expand on the anomaly more and make some interesting hooks for the story though.
Description
While theoretically able to manifest anywhere on the West Coast, RPC-XXX has thus far only been documented in California.
If that's the case, how'd the Authority know it could spawn elsewhere? Seems easier to just state it only affects seaside roads in California.
However, all iterations will conform with the region's roadway infrastructure.
Pretty vague, you could explain how it conforms to the roads. Is it just the type of material and paint lines used on the road? Or does it also align itself with other roads in a specific manner?
There is no one specific entrance to RPC-XXX. Once a target for RPC-XXX has been selected, an offramp will materialize on a highway.
This reads weird. I think you should first state RPC-XXX's ability to shift the earth and graft itself into the existing roads and then start detailing how the entrances appear and shift into the infrastructure.
Once a target for RPC-XXX has been selected, an offramp will materialize on a highway. If the target takes the anomalous path, a new instance will initiate.
What makes for a valid target here? Down the line it displays the factors that can increase the chance of being targetted by the anomaly, sure, but you never actually state what is. What aspects does a vehicle need to have to be in RPC-XXX's sights? Is a track vehicle valid or does it only affect those wheeled? Can a bicycle be affected too? Too much is left in the air for something documenting it.
Inceptions of RPC-XXX can not unmanifest
I'd advise avoiding "can" or "can not", the Authority does not know that in-universe, replace it for "do/does" or "do/does not" or "have been shown/observed".
However, prolonged exposure to RPC-XXX increases the risk of angering RPC-XXX-1,
Hold you horses, there you haven't even introduced RPC-XXX-1 here yet! That aside, I'd also advise switching the exposure part for something that indicates it's staying inside the road that angers RPC-XXX-1, it's too vague otherwise. Something like "However, targets remaining inside RPC-XXX for large periods of time have been known to be assailed by RPC-XXX-1 in a focused manner." or along those lines could read better.
Patrolling this anomalous beachfront drive is an entity classified as RPC-XXX-1.
Way off-tone, Write something along the lines of "RPC-XXX is known to house an entity resembling a 4-doored, bright cyan 1953 Hudson Hornet modified to house a 7-X engine, designated RPC-XXX-1.".
RPC-XXX-1 will show itself initially in a broken-down state.
I had a hard time understanding this sentence, since "broken-down" doesn't explain the damage inflicted at all, or how it shows the signs it's not in working order. Is it visibly smoking from the hood, or is it just turned off on the side of the road?
However, drivers who pass RPC-XXX-1 without stopping will trigger its second anomalous state. RPC-XXX-1 will appear on the road behind the driver as a ghostly but material apparition.
Reads wrong. You could reshape it to just "However, if a target (at this point use target or subject, I still don't know what exactly the target is!) passes RPC-XXX-1, it will reappear behind the target, in a semi-transparent form reminiscent of ectoplasmatic anomalies, and chase them/attempt to race them through RPC-XXX.
they will be knocked off the road and into the sea rocks below.
Weirdly informal. Doesn't explain how RPC-XXX-A collides with the target (Rear-ended? PIT manouver?). Mentions falling into the sea rocks unecessarily, it's much more formal to state the vehicle falls over due to a combination of the above and the haphazard nature of RPC-XXX, and instead of mentioning where it falls, perhaps mention that no target has survived an RPC-XXX crash or something.
During the Authorty's encounters with the anomalous vehicle, it was evident that it did not operate off traditional physics. For instance, the direction of speed is not a constant factor within RPC-XXX-1's frame of movement. Instead, the anomaly follows a continuous force of acceleration. If it were not for the forces of air and road friction, RPC-XXX-1 could reach speeds exceeding the sound barrier.
Tarb already mentioned what's wrong with this text, so I'm not going to waste your time and simply say I completely agree with it.
Discovery:
Rumors and accounts of RPC-XXX1 run-ins date back to the early 1970s.
Missing hypen
Many of these supposed encounters match similar details to RPC-XXX, including a road they never knew existed and the crashed 1953 Hudson Hornet.
Seems redundant considering the previous sentence, it could be easier to bridge the two sentences with a comma maybe?
In all accounts, the teller
Too informal, "Witnesses of these accounts all mention…" should be what you could be writing.
In addition to these tall tales
These are most definetly not tall tales, "civilian reports" is much more clinical. The point of "Authority considered the rumors to be false in the past" is already made in the paragraph below, so no need to imply it now.
cases of missing persons were made.
"An uptick in missing person cases across California since 197X was noted, " is more clinical and apt.
Staff would come and go without incident for decades until 7/03/2024,
"come and go" is too informal, you could change this for something else but you'll likely need to rephrase the whole sentence.
Agent ██████ went missing after going on a one-day-long honeymoon with his wife
Too informal, again, but not outrageously so. Maybe "Agent BLOCKSBLOCKS was reported missing during an authorized vacation trip with his wife in celebration of their honeymoon" would fit more nicely.
found shortly moments later
Redundant "shortly".
Agent ██████'s car would be found shortly moments later beached on a rocky shore.
You should specify where on the map too, even if you're going to ██████ it.
Initially, Site staff theorized that the crash was accidental. However, recovered camera recordings from the wreck gave conclusive proof that RPC-XXX and RPC-XXX-1 existed.
You could bridge these sentences, but that's not a pressing issue at all. What's more of a problem here is the last part: Too informal, and more dire, too vague. Even a small description of what was caught on camera and the couple's reaction and other recording details (or with what camera if you want to be thorough) would help greatly here. "Conclusive proof" should be switched with something like "confirmed the existance of RPC-XXX and RPC-XXX-1"
Overall I'm not convinced with the Discovery part, there's no reason for the Authority not to press matters with something like a new, hip, suspiciously-consistent-across-speakers urban myth without at least a surface-level investigation and interview with the witnesses. The lack of initiative here is really out of character.
Addendum 1:
RPC Researchers encountered RPC-XXX-1 fifteen times utilizing methods that increased the likelihood of an encounter. During each engagement, RPC Researchers attempted to understand the anomaly further by observing the vehicle from a distance or provoking it into a race.
This really, really sounds like a job for the CSD class to do, not the prized researchers of the Authority, regardless of the safety measures applied. They shouldn't be in harm's way, period.
Dr. ████ carried out the most recent and last observation of RPC-XXX-1. During the event, that particular instance of RPC-XXX-1 had been notably less damaged than usual.
Again, I'm not being told of the damage that can be seen inflicted on RPC-XXX-1 at all, are they both engine issues and superficial damage, or just the former? Also it'd be more clinical if it were written like "During Event-XXX-N, researchers noted RPC-XXX-1 was in a visibly better state than in previous occasions".
Most of the building's indoor section had been gutted and defaced.
"Most of the building's indoor section showed signs of vandalism, squatting and scavenging." may be better, but the current sentence is ok enough as it is.
Inside, they found a near-pristine cyan 1953 Hudson Hornet identical to RPC-XX-1
Typo, and too informal. "In the building garage, a cyan 1953 Hudson Hornet in good, albeit unused condition was found, surrounded […]" works better.
On the car's hood were flowers, an image of a young man in their early 20s, and a farewell letter
Cool, but what kind of flowers? And how does the Authority know it's a farewell letter? They'd just say "a single sheet of paper, containing a poem." or something. So too with the photo, they'd more likely describe it as "a Caucasian male with (X and Y features), most likely a young adult", maybe even add a footnote showing that inspection of the photo revealed it to be from the 60s or so.
[The Poem]
I don't know how to critique verse, so I'll just say that it's the high point of the article and I liked it a lot, very heartfelt but still myserious.
Addendum 2:
I'll just go right ahead and say this Addendum is clearly an Incident log, you should change that.
While many Researchers widely accepted the theory, the academic consensus agreed that containment would be preferable.
I'd like to read what went through their minds to decide that, consider this is a Gamma-Orange (reading all this makes me feel like it really should be Red at the very least). Not saying it's illogical, but it needs strong, stated argumentation, like transporting it to the site for closer interior inspection.
The cyan car and all other paraphernalia would be gassed up
State the cyan car (I get the feeling this thing should have a designation at this point) being refueled first and then mention the fetishes, also gassed up is really, really informal here.
to Site-95 manually in a convoy of low-profile cars.
It seems much more convenient, and safer, for the original car to be towed away or otherwise transported inside another vehicle. And it's not like changing this part of the story would ruin the rest of the plot, make another Authority vehicle be the one that sends RPC-XXX-1 off the cliff and have the car rust away into oxidized metal for the Authority to find out once they check in on it after the chase.
Only 14 minutes into the drive
The "Only" is unecessary here.
Inevitably, all but the transporter car
So goes for "Inevitably" here. Also, what happened to the drivers who fell off? Are they ok?
RPC-XXX-1 went over the cliff's edge into the sea below
Could be worded more clinically here.
appearing to rust away in real time.
Wrong use of "appearing" and informal tone with "in real time". "decaying and rusting at an unnaturally accelerated rate" or something like that could be better.
While RPC-XXX-1 no longer terrorizes the coastal motorists of California,RPC-XXX never dematerialized, and on occasion, people still claim to see the ghostly wreck of RPC-XXX-1.
This sounds like you fully shifted into a campfire story, "While RPC-XXX-1 attacks have no longer been reported since Incident XXX-1, neither it nor RPC-XXX have dematerialized, with sightings continuing to be reported as of the time of writing" fits the clinical tone better.
Despite all of the issues stated above, Addendum-XXX-2-That-Should-Really-Be-Incident-Log-1 was really cool, and it's obvious it's the part that inspired you to write this RPC story. Though it made me realize that you never mentioned what RPC-XXX-1 looks like on the inside. Is it visibly manned? Is the driver invisible? Or are the windows too opaque and tinted to see inside past strange, moving silhouettes? Something to think about.
I agree with majority of the articles critics. Majority of its paragraphs can be condensed and shortened. The meaning of its Author muddles an otherwise simple story. And I'm not a fan of the poem. But when I was able to parse its meaning, outcame a very tight knit, compact article that's essentially a ghost tale. Barring you look at my changes, I like it a lot and is a showcase of how some simple revisions and purging can transform a stone to a diamond.
2/5 currently, after changes 5/5. Yes, that might sound egotistical of me, but the core of the article is, again, strong and being held back by filler prose.
(account deleted)