00:01:355 (1) - this should be snapped to 1/2
00:02:711 (3,4) - usually these botherline overlaps are considered untidy unless it is heavily complimented by a pattern or a style, yours right now is just untidy, either space it or over lap it more, same could be said for 00:03:369 (4,1) -
00:03:898 (1) - this slider shape itself again is usually considered to be ugly unless it is heavily complimented by a pattern or a style, a slider alone after it doesn't justify the shape, also why is there a completely pointless anchor point in it? something like
this should do.
00:01:694 (2,2,3) - you probably didn't put much thought into your curvature of the slider and you just did it randomly, which in result make things look untidy, either make them have some sort of relationship, or completely alter the slider shape to so they don't need to justify each other
00:05:508 (3) - this slider should start at 00:05:593 -
00:06:016 (4) - this note belongs here 00:06:101 -
00:06:355 (5) - this note belongs to 00:06:440 -
00:06:779 (1) - interesting, when literally nothing is happening at the blue ticks you decided to map 1/4 reverse sider, it would make more sense to have a 1/2 slider for the same length of time, either way you're making players hold at a calm section which has fairly consistent intensity that would suggest a similar note density as before, and when I say note density I mean the amount of notes players can click
00:08:135 (1) - no. at least not with today's standard, aesthetics are subjective I know but firstly it is boarder line unrankable due to it using anchor point to manipulate the SV of the slider different to what it actually is, Secondly have you considered whether or not these weird sliders fit the music, I usually see these type of sliders in death metal and maybe in a val0108 maps, which tbh I don't think it fits the music your mapping to, it's a calm and melodic remix, I would probably expect more smoothness in slider art
00:09:322 (2,1) - consider what I said before about style and consistency in pattern.
00:09:661 (1,1) - more consistent overlapping? if you're gonna manual overlap it do it consistently
00:10:508 (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20) - go to compose, there's a convert slider to stream tool, use it. Fix all the streams in the map using that
00:12:542 (1) - that sound you're trying to map isn't as dense as you think buddy
00:13:559 (6) - starting from this to 00:46:101 (1) - there should be a noticeable change in intensity of the map as more melody and instruments are being introduced, but your note density is nearly unchanged, even if it did it wasn't noticeable, which makes it undermapped, where note enough notes are there to represent the melody or the instruments that are pretty obvious in the music. also what I did notice was the the big difference in SV, this is still a relatively calm section despite I said it is more intense, 2x SV is overboard, also consider what would you do if you use such a high SV now, what would your actual intense part's SV would be, also 2x ? that would be severely undermapped if the clam sections are mapped with 2x SV, severely misrepresenting the intensity of the song
00:46:440 (1) - to 00:56:610 (6) - continuing, why did you map this build up to have more intensity then the intro which I highlighted above this? it clearly has less melodic and less instruments in the music