Edit: The author addressed some of my criticisms and was pretty open to discussion on how he could improve his article, so I decided to raise my rating to a 3.
I'm sorry to say, but I do not like the final product. I wanted to like this one, I was excited for it, but it could've been so much better. This article obviously needed at least two more revisions.
The premise is somewhat similar to the classic SCP-250 (Most of an Allosaurus). Both are about animate dinosaur skeletons, but I think you do enough to distinguish this article from that one. The body horror element you added, them being made partially from human bones, creates terrifying visuals and makes me wonder if these creatures will stop being dinosaurs at some point. You put a lot of thought into the discovery log, especially the section with automobile accidents. I wonder how he was able to pull that off, but I suppose that adds to the mystery.
My main problems with the article are:
1. Misuse of in-universe and scientific terminology.
2. The exploration log.
3. Many of the sentences and paragraphs feel disconnected from each other.
4. Overuse and sometimes misuse of [REDACTED].
5. The sudden inclusion of illusory materials.
6. Lack of descriptions.
I will get into most of these problems in the LbL section, but I'll talk about a few of them here: I'm sorry to say that the log was a slog to get through. I think the biggest issue I had with it was the lack of dialog. It would be interesting to see how the ASF operatives react to what are essentially live dinosaurs, but instead it's mostly just technical jargon and descriptions that lack the dialog to make them worthwhile. I would look at RPC-743 (A Community Project) for an idea of what a good manned exploration log looks like.
Secondly, the anomalous metamaterials come out of nowhere and are very contradictory. If whoever's setting this facility up wanted to set it up for public use, why spend so much on anomalous materials that'll just be discarded? They could probably make enough money on that alone! It clashes with the feeling I get that this place (dinosaur fossils aside) is supposed to be low budget. I think this would be better served in another article. To be fair, the site was housing sauropods and mosasaurs, so I think you'd need some way to get around that.
Thirdly, I feel that you didn't go into enough detail about the behavior of these creatures or their state. How much of the creature's bodies are replaced with spinal tissues? Aside from territorialism, what behaviors do these creatures exhibit? You spend so much time explaining how the facility looks like, but so little is dedicated to the behavior of these creatures.
RPC-381 instances are to remain in the abandoned facility in which they were found (since designated Site-381),
Usually (but not always), sites dedicated to a single anomaly have the "OL" prefix attached to them (In this case, it'd be OL-Site-381).
RPC-381 consists of a number of animate fossils belonging to varying species of the clade Dinosauria,1 discovered in a disused exhibit facility. These fossils behave as their living counterparts presumably did, displaying behaviours such as territoriality, and hunting instincts.
I've got three gripes with this section:
1. I hate to be Reddit, but not all of the creatures featured in the park are dinosaurs. You mention pterosaurs and mosasaurs, the former of which is closely related to dinosaurs but not part of dinosauria and the latter of which being more related to modern snakes and monitor lizards. I would say:
belonging to a variety of species, most of which are from the clade archosauria.
2. While we do have some articles that use British English, most articles use American english, so I'd remove the "u" from behaviour. Admittedly, it is confusing since we use European dates and the metric system, but it is how it is. This is mostly a nitpick, but I thought it was worth noting.
3. This is also a nitpick, but I think the final comma is unnecessary since it's only separating three words.
Instances do not require sustenance and do not produce waste but simulate what is believed to be typical behaviour of their live counterparts. They will engage in combat with one another on occasion, resulting in pieces of fossil and bone being chipped or damaged. It should be noted, however, that acts that would normally damage material as fragile as dinosaur fossils do not appear to affect instances in a manner that would be expected.
1. "Behaviour" again.
2. I would put the section denoting their behavior in the previous paragraph since they're talking about the same subject, and keep the parts discussing their regenerative qualities earlier in the document.
3. Furthermore, I would remove the word "Dinosaur" and just say "fossilized material".
While minor chips appear to heal independently, significant damage requires external sources of bone for restoration, requiring periodic enclosure access. Despite lacking sensory organs, instances can detect sound and will be roused from their 'sleeping' state by noise of sufficient volume, intensity, and/or proximity.
Whilst Site-381 was discovered abandoned and in a dilapidated state, no confirmed sightings of RPC-381 have occurred outside of the facility grounds. However, unconfirmed, scattered reports of unexplained skeletal remains in nearby areas have reached Authority attention. Investigation into these is ongoing.
Having two sentences start with what is essentially the same word back to back is jarring. I think you could merge these two paragraphs and replace "whilst" with a different conjoiner.
although enclosures capable of housing multiple species also exist.
I would replace "capable of" with "which", since it's not like most of these enclosures are tailored for specific specimens, save for the mosasaurs and flying creatures. That's the impression I got, anyways.
Recovered documents indicate that the former operators of Site-381, long since departed, relied on human spinal remains for repairs.
I think you could've mentioned this earlier. Them being made partially from human spines is such an important aspect that it's mentioned in the title, why is it only now being mentioned?
An unusually high frequency of auto accidents was noted by insurance investigators occurring in and around Loving County, TX, USA between [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], with the findings being forwarded to the Texas Department of Insurance.
Usually, we censor dates with whiteout/blackout boxes, not with [REDACTED]. Also, the five instances of "[REDACTED]" got tiring really fast.
For the second discovery section: I think it'd flow a lot better if many of the paragraphs were joined. Also, why have two discovery sections? Also, I would put the section explaining the exploration log in the log's foreword and end notes.
If wild 'live' instances of RPC-381 are discovered, Authority command is to be alerted immediately so that the appropriate team can be dispatched for the instance's tracking and, if possible, capture. However, if encountered, the use of appropriate sleep agents is permitted.12
I think this section is better off in the containment protocols. If you're going to keep it here, I would alter this sentence to use active, present tense language.
Whilst the name of the company responsible has produced no viable leads, at least one name recovered from documentation, a Mr. Hans Drommond, has been tied to an anomalous brand of easy-bake ovens capable of manufacturing miniature, trainable dinosaurs and Cenozoic fauna.
I thought we agreed to cut this section? I mean, I'd be fine with it, but I thought we agreed to cut the connection between our two articles. Also, my draft has changed and no longer involves easy bake oven-type toys.
LOG:
rtitioned, with a large wall of reinforced concrete with a section of reinforced glass separating one side from another containing a large volume of water (estimated to be around 100,000 cubic metres) containing an animate instance of RPC-381-Z4.
Previously in your doc, the footnote was behind the period, not in front of it.
I'm sorry, but I just can't give this one a higher rating in its current state.