The grammar and formatting is all correct this time, but I think there are sill issues with the tone.
I did all the revisions al the previous draft, but i still don't think it is good enough. Here is the Sandbox link.
I assume this has to be perfect before i can publish it.
Alright, let's see what we've got here, Ninjacat64.
You're missing the Item # before the object class.
Numbers less than ten should be written out.
There's a couple spacing errors, whenever there is a comma there should be a space after it, for example: "█████,Iceland"
Kevlar is a trademark name, the scientific name for the material is poly-paraphenylene terephthalamide.
The comparison to the freighter boat didn't really tell me what this structure actually looked like and I didn't realize it was a boat until the last sentence of the description so that should probably be adjusted.
The "normal home" says the flora found within it are typical for what would be found in homes, but I don't see how that is common knowledge. I'd just say they are typical flora present in the region the skip is located in or something to that affect.
"Contains many surgery and first aid related tools", I'd say "surgical and first aid related".
SCP-XXXX-1 should be referred to as it rather than he.
Foundation and the Foundation are always capitalized.
I'm not a fan of the fact that the instance is knowledgeable about the Foundation because that connection makes no sense. How would a ship's captain -anomalous or not- have enough knowledge of a clandestine organization to know the numerical designation of other anomalies? Not buying that.
I don't see why SCP-XXXX-2 has a designation if they are no longer anomalous.
"The edges, however, are surprisingly sharp"
"Some researchers claim that the object sometimes glows and holds a static charge at times."
"object is comprised entirely of organic matter. with fur lining the sides and also having leaves near the top. genetic testing is inconclusive. object does not seem to require sustenance."
"the bottom and top ands of object appear to be lenses, there is an unknown object near the bottom emanating light anywhere from 5 to 100 lux at any given time. there is a prism located at the top, refraction resulting from the prism seems to fluctuate, although it is now currently known how this occurs."
"there is a gyroscope-like object positioned at the top of the object, witch seems to generate speed through an unknown means."
Actually, there's no capitalization in the last collapsible at all, too. That needs to be fixed.
Additionally, what is the correlation between the items in the last collapsible and the rest of the ship? They seem rather random.
Overall, I can't say this really piqued my interest. There's a lot of information to digest here but the core anomaly of the ship itself is rather vague, at best. What does this thing do? What is the purpose of all of these different rooms? Prior to deactivating the turbines, where was this ship actually going? What is its purpose? What about SCP-XXXX-1? Can it reveal any of this information or does the Foundation launch an exploratory mission instead?
Answering some of those questions in the draft, and providing it with some form of narrative, is my best advice to you while moving forward. As is, this feels extremely disjointed and none of the pieces seem to fit together in any meaningful way. If this thing, or the instance that captains it, has a purpose, that wasn't clear here. Perhaps the Foundation could interview the instance to gain some of that information. To cut down the length of the description and flesh out the details surrounding the other areas on this ship, maybe an exploration log could be added in.
There's several skips that revolve around ships, so I recommend checking those out to get a better idea of how the topic was approached there and what methods were used to reveal the anomalous capabilities of the object. I personally recommend checking these out to start: SCP-455 and SCP-2467. If you need help developing the concept more, try swinging by the Ideas and Brainstorming forum before you try to rework the article. Getting the concept fleshed out more and getting a general backstory/narrative worked out beforehand will make the writing process go a lot smoother.
ETA: Also, to answer your question, you don't have to make a new thread every time you update your draft. Just post a comment in the original thread saying it has been updated so that reviewers know you still need feedback. It's beneficial to both you, and the reviewer, to see what feedback has already been given and what ideas or issues haven't been brought up yet. As far as the draft needing to "perfect" before you post it, I would hold off on posting until five to ten people have said they would upvote it, but that's just my preference on the matter. I do suggest getting as many eyes on this as you can though, the more feedback, the better, but it's whatever you feel comfortable with really.
Gave this another read and I just want to point out that saying the object is a structure doesn't necessarily mean it's a building, it's defined as: "a building or other object constructed from several parts". It could very well be a boat, a car, an aircraft, or a building, so ambiguity isn't helpful here if a reader can't discern which one of these you were aiming for. It's important to remember that while you as the author know everything about this object, a reader isn't privy to that information unless you write it.
In interviews, it has claimed that the structure is a 'ship' and that he is the captain of said 'ship'.
If that's the case, why? I'm failing to understand what ties all of the different aspect of this object together and why this entity perceives it to be something that it isn't. That opens up a lot of potential for this idea from a narrative standpoint, but nothing is ever done with that. I don't see this article working out if it tries to stick with its brevity, there is too much going on here and too many unanswered questions for it to be both brief and cohesive, I think, so if you want all of the ideas you've got going on to work my best advice for you would be to delve more into describing the different rooms in the object, and what their purpose and function is, and to address why this entity sees things the way that it does. Perhaps through an observation log and an interview log? That's one route this could be taken.
Of course, I'm assuming that the this interpretation is correct so if not, this advice would be rendered mostly void, but no matter what your goal is here, clarity is more important than keeping the length of this as short as it is. It's entirely confusing and feels extremely disjointed at the moment and that's due to a lack of detail, the idea itself -or what I'm presuming is the idea- could work, but this rendition of it won't. The rest of my critique, minus the misinterpretation, I still stand behind though. Sorry for the confusion, and if you had a different intention for this and the idea and I'm still not seeing it, please let me know so I can adjust my critique accordingly.