A Dim Flame Of Hatred

[Catalyst]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PeO6wxsxVxIAdw6ZULhb1qFKGZ7peIc3kUFrPKQ32us/edit?usp=sharing

[Super_Smitty]

Test log assigned for grading

Please wait 1-3 days for final score

[Super_Smitty]

Grading Results:

Grammar: (10/10)
I don't see anything wrong in grammar or sentence structure. Although the design makes me get lost in words.

Design: (6/10)
Honestly you deserve a ten. Because simplicity is a forum of design in itself, so its great don't misunderstand me. Its literally a better SCP-035 wiki design. However... when I grade design I do it off of three factors, the amount of effort into the document, the originality of the document, and the practicality of design. So for you the lack of barriers/spacing between "SCP Explanation/Background", "Hypothesis", "Analysis #", "Conclusions", etc. Just causes me to see a jumble of words while reading failing on practicality. Plus it docent have much originality.... which I should also mention using formats is a great alternative as well but it causes loss in originality/creativity points. I recommend just adding more, maybe make it look like its on paper, or if you want it to be from the "SCP Database" include some random site information like most websites have. Try to stick to a source of formatting.

Creativity: (7/10)
So your loosing some points because I'm easily lost on the hypothesis/purpose of the interviews besides data collection and cross analysis. Also proper conclusions with analysis on the interviewing docent seem to be present. Either than that the creativity is extremely high when it comes to using other interviews of SCP-035 impacting the main interview of Analysis C.

Final Score: (23/30)
Not bad, I'm just lost in the words. Work on better defining who, what, when, where and especially why. Also work on that design. This is easily something I can see on the SCP-035 wiki but not something I would like to see as a proper test from a gaminglight researcher. That sounds harsh but I am a hard grader and that does mean that these criticisms/critiques will better you on publishing research logs.