[Easy]
00:28:022 (2) - Staring off with combos \o/ (I can already tell this is going to be a great post). I personally just like to add a NC in places like this since it's stacked.
Nope. This is still readable and I follow the measures of the music for my NC placement in easier diffs.01:52:417 (2) - ^
^01:53:736 (1) - Here you have new combo but 00:29:340 (3) - here you don't, it's the same pattern and part of song so it should be the same I think
Oops. Changed.[Normal]
00:25:384 (7) - I'd move this slightly more to the left, say X=100
Why? Moved downwards a little, anyway.01:51:099 (1,2) - First object to 256|352 and second object to 141|251 (or there about anyway), I think it flows better into the slider.
(screenshot) I... remapped this part.01:57:362 (2) - Move upwards like
this 
^03:14:834 (2,3,4) - I think these play better if you change the "curve"
like this, because you get the downward motion from 03:14:175 (1) - this slider.
I simplified 03:14:175 (1) into a 1/2 slider, so this won't work. I did something else.03:48:461 (3,5) - NC on these because they're stacked under the circle
No need to; they're readable and the current NC placement follows the music.03:53:735 (3,5) - ^
^03:59:010 (1) - ^
^[Hard]
00:57:857 (6,7) - Maybe stack 7 below 6?
...Why?02:09:560 (1) - Make this curved and blanket it
kinda like this ^02:22:253 (6,7) - You could stack these two like I mentioned in the first point
^. The instrument sounds don't have the same pitch, and for 1/2 stacks, that'd be really weird to do.02:35:934 (1) - I'd make this longer and extend it to the white tick because of the lyrics, and you'll have to delete 02:36:593 (2) - this then
(like this) I'm following the instruments.02:59:011 (7) - Would definitely put a NC here, particularly because of the spacing that 02:58:351 (4,5,6) - these objects have, it always makes me think like that's a jump (I'm used to playing insanes where this would happen anyway so I automatically assume that and do the jump without looking at the approach circle and there's no new combo there that would make me go pay attention to it).
Played with the spacing instead.02:59:340 (8) - Continuing from above, you could also stack this under the end point of the 02:59:011 (7) - slider, I feel like it plays better this way
Sure.[Insane]
00:21:428 (1) - I'd move this to the right and not have it be stacked
(screenshot). You don't stack them here 00:14:505 (4,1) - and it's a similar section of music
Umm, the difference of spacing between the previous spot and this is very close, and I don't really think this even matters... Sorry, but yeah, that's what I think.01:51:099 (1,2) - CTRL+G these two
...Why, again? It totally breaks the flow of this section.02:07:912 (2) - Place this under the start point of 02:06:923 (1) - this slider
Once again, why? I can't see the benefit of doing it.02:08:901 (4,5,6) - Make a triangle pattern here instead
like so, the jump works better this way in my opinion because of the start of the next slider that's pointing downwards and it's a bit awkward to play it the way you have it now I feel.
Decided to make the spacing consistent, instead.02:17:308 (3) - Put this at, let's say, 361|228.
It's better to make this stacked to follow the constant pitch of the drum.02:54:395 (1) - Curved instead of a sharp bend like that?
Sure.03:19:285 (4) - Move this down 307|188
It ruins the flow from 03:18:790 (2).04:12:431 (1) - Instead of what you have right now, make this slider shorter by 1/4 and add a 1/8 slider after it
(screenshot), it fits with the piano right at the end
Nope. That'd be way too complex. I intentionally did this to simplify the rhythm.
