First thing I noticed is the image link is broken, though that could just be on my end. As for the article itself:
All in all, I still think this needs a lot of work. I'd work on the issues mentioned, and get others to read it and give their opinions on it. When you get the article to where you want it, I would post a new forum and ask readers if they would upvote it in its current state. If they say no, ask for some more feedback and make any changes you deem necessary. Good luck with your draft!
You're tabview code on your sandbox page isn't working, I think because of the extra [[/tab]] near the very top.
As for the article:
On the whole, there are several places where tone could be tightened up to be more clinical or scientific (sorry I can't do a line-by-line for those right now). But you can start with working on the formatting changes and general suggestions here, and then seek more review on the finer points.
Let me also state that concept development and characterization are things I'm not very adept at, so I haven't mentioned much on those topics. Ideally a more experienced site member will put eyes on this draft and can make suggestions for how those areas of your article might be improved.
P.S: You should not start a new forum thread for this same draft. It's helpful for reviewers if developments and previous critiques are all available to see in one place. If you've made significant changes to the draft, it's fine to post a reply on this same thread, saying that you've made updates, in order to bump it.