I agree with Marksmen16 in that your critique did come off rather negative; it also related a somewhat (forgive the bluntness) snobbish or haughty air. Although I know prior to reading the critique that such was definitely not your intention, I can easily see where the artist would feel offended or upset.I've noticed that the above commentors have already made notes about most everything else, but I'll add my two bits to their pile like a good advisor.Regarding the hoof style and the fact that you admit to not knowing how close to the original design the artist aimed to immitate, I think that both you and the artist were in the right. You noted that the hooves were wrong if the artist was trying to emulate the original design closely, not that the style itself was wrong and that there was only one way to do it, etc. Simultaneously, the artist was most likely (though not necessarily) assuming that viewers of his/her comic would catch the implication that he/she was using his/her own variant style, since many artists do. You had the right to point out the difference; he/she had the right to be a little put off by the remark.The same goes for your comment about the muzzle style the artist used, although I have to agree with Haissan's notes about how you made it seem like there were only two set styles. I feel that the comment about the muzzle style itself was well-intentioned, ultimately; I think it just needs a bit more expansion on the note you made about how to better draw the muzzles from head-on views (constructively) and less emphasis on the Show/Fan distinction.I do agree with you about the eyelashes; it took me a moment to realize that it was, in fact, Dashthere were no eyelashes. You might have phrased it in a more positive fashion (returning to the negative-positive balance advice) and omitted the remark that they were, "of course," too small. (The use of "of course" can be touchy sometimes; best used when the intention behind the words is very plainly positive, just to be safe. At least, that's how I usually handle it when leaving comments/critiques, and so far, it's worked fairly well.) The eye style section would fit nicely up there with the hooves and muzzles, though, no?Lastly, here's a little something I know about artists, writers, and anyone else with a flare for creativity: we don't usually take well to criticism, even constructive and obviously unoffensive criticism; I think it might be a hidden gene in our DNA strands.The point is, some people take criticism better than others. While you could have left a more revised version of your critique, the artist could have reacted less heatedly. Some people may say that theyan honest, bare-bones critique (or some variation thereof), but then those same people may react as angrily to even the most well-intentioned, positively-written three sentences of criticism as they would to a page and a half some jerk left because he doesn't have anything better to do. Don't let one rogue cockroach keep you from hearing the fiddling crickets.And when all else fails, a few chipper emoticons might lend a helping smile to the critique.That might have been a tad more than two bits, but there you go. ^^ I hope the artist listens to your apologies and eventually comes around. If he/she doesn't... well, at least you learned something from the experience. It may not feel great, but you'll most definitely know how to avoid similar experiences in future critiques.Oh, and I believe the "Impact" category refers to how the art piece affected you overall; like a rating of your first impression.