First, nice use of "coming to his senses"! Good job on remembering that turn of phrase. However, note the "his". In Russian, you would have needed to remove as many pronouns as possible (in fact, it's the hallmark of a bad translation to leave them in). Not so in English, where they are needed to make a complete phrase.

The second mistake here is transcribing direct speech. In English, you do not use the m-dash or n-dash for that purpose! What you do use are quotation marks and only those. The schemes are as follows:

"Bla-bla," he said.
"Bla-bla!" he said.
"Bla-bla?" he said.
"Bla-bla," he said. "Bla-bla."
"Bla bla," he said, "Bla-bla."
He said, "Bla-bla."
He said, "Bla-bl--" and was cut off abruptly.
They reported him saying "bla-bla-bla."

Is the difference between these obvious, or should I go into detail?

Anyway, so the first phrase should look like this:

Congrats! The first comma use is correct, which is pretty rare. "As if" is a subordinating conjunction, and when it goes after the main clause, then you usually don't need a comma.

Now to the mistakes!

"Maybe" needs bracketing commas, because it is not a strictly necessary element for the sentence. You can take it out and nothing will change. I would also replace it with "perhaps"--"maybe" is mostly used when someone is speaking, it looks worse when the author uses it in a description.

Nice us of "to notice" and "to feel"--quite correct.

You don't need to use "from," though. That's completely wrong. That whole structure should be different

Note also that I'm not using no spaces before and after the m-dash. Like this: "something--something." This is not a strict requirement anymore; however, many will still insist on using no spaces.

I explained the difference between "that" and "which" in Skype, but just in case you need to look it up, it's the difference between a restrictive and a non-restrictive clause.

And, finally, "formulated" is usually reserved for more mathematical uses. Not incorrect, but "articulated" fits better here.

So the final sentence should look something like this (with the structure changed a bit for better style):

All right, the first thing here is punctuation. This should just be a simple use of quotation marks.

Next, you don't actually need a comma after "so" here. The sentence is short, and the pause is unnecessary.

"It's" is not quite correct here stylistically. I would do it like this.

Important: anybody can use any time they like for now, be it past or present tense (or even future if we're practicing that specifically). However, I will check for consistency across a single post.

The word order here is a bit wonky. "Curiously looking at you" is either a definition of "halfling"(and then the verb is gone, and you need to follow this up with an action), like so:

See? It's an essential clause that defines which halfling (out of many, presumably) is looking at the reader. Speaking of which, you are writing like the dungeon master by using the "you." This is OK, as long as you know you're doing it.

If you want to make it a separate complete sentence you want something like this:

Note that in both sentences you're changing "curiously" closer to the end. You can split the subject from the verb, but it isn't usually recommended you do so.

You really like the word "guy," don't you? It's a good word, but it's usually used in spoken language to define someone (i.e."He's an OK guy.") This isn't a mistake per se, but I'd do it like this:

Oh, and "short enough" implies that there's a reason his hair is cut short. Short enough for what, specifically?

Consistency across times! You want "He is wearing" here. Oh, and add the "and" at the end, it sounds better this way. Other than that, this is almost fine (you missed an article, these are particular sleeves and a particular collar. You used "the sides" correctly; "the sleeves and collar" follow the same rule).

Next:

First of all, "belt consists of." You've only got one belt! The rest of the sentence is fine, so let's expand your vocabulary. I'd do it like this:

Note the "-ing" form.

And, finally:

Almost correct! The word order is slightly wonky, but this is entirely readable. I'd change it like this

And, once again, vocabulary expansion time! You can say the same thing like this:

or

"Sitting on something" when used to talk about objects means "being on a surface."

All right, let's get into the descriptions now.

Technically, "juvenile" can be used as a noun. However, it is so much more common as an adjective that the use here frankly feels off. To address your own area of expertise: "the juvenile court deals with any and all crimes committed by youths." So here I would also replace it with "youth".

Also, you need an article before "appearance." He had "an appearance/a countenance"; however, the article goes before the adjective, which here starts with a consonant. So the sentence needs to look like this:

Next, several relatively severe mistakes here.

After some thinking, it's possible to parse that "the high elf" here is used to mean "the high elf as a race of the elven species." However, the context makes that ambigous: the other meaning is that Dagmor is the only high elf in the world—obviously false. It's a stumble that's best corrected in this manner:

This means that Dagmor is one of many and creates no ambiguity.

Next, "frostily-blue eyes with the vertical pupil" implies that he's got one pupil for two eyes. You want:

Next, "outgrows" is not a word. "Outgrowths" is.

And, finally:

You want an adjective, not a posessive here. Like so:

There are also good things in this sentence, do not despair! "Couldn't be anything but the marks" is very good. The "barely visible weave of scales" is a downright beautiful turn of phrase: well done!

The next sentence is fine, but for the "outgrows."

Then we come to this:

First of all, fingers "ended in". Second, you're conflating two different sentence structures. Either "which seemed to be made of glass" or "seemingly made of glass." Pick one and stick to it. Your version says that his fingers seemed to be made of glass, not the claws.

This sentence:

...is perfectly done. You're starting to put your lessons to good use, good job!

And, finally:

"Put on the settle" is not an existing turn of phrase. Did you mean "set down beside him"? Or put onto something I can't translate back into Russian?

Also, what you've said here is that it's the sword which is decorated, not the scabbard. Did you mean that?

All in all, some good progress.

"As you please!" That's a beautiful turn of phrase, and I think it suits Dagmor very well: it's a bit antiquated, not something you would hear on the streets, and a little warmer than neutral. Good choice!

In fact, the whole sentence is practically without any mistakes. There is only one little piece of trouble:

It should either be "promise me you'll give me a visit" or "promise to give me a visit." Promise + to whom + future or promise + infinitive.

There's one optional reading, though:

If you had a comma before "but," it would mean "the youth was confused only for a moment." Your version is "the youth was confused only for a moment." I'd say you'd want the comma, though technically you can do it both ways.

I'm afraid "shortly" is not a synonym for "quickly." It means that you did it "quickly after the previous action." "You will be allowed in shortly" = "you will be allowed in soon." You want "quickly."

Next "it covered" in itself isn't quite correct past tense here, because "covered" isn't in the passive voice. You want "it became covered.

Or, if you want a prettier version:

Next, times are screwed up."I should try it" refers to the future. "Earlier" sends you back into the past. Assuming you're expressing regret, the sentence should look like this:

A/the, the last time can't be just any old time by default.

Your second mistake is in punctuation. First of all, the "in contrast" part is an introductory clause. You need a comma after it. Second, the juxtaposition between the two parts of the sentence is stronger than the comma allows. You need an m-dash here.

Other than that, very good. Perfectly clear.

One tiny nitpick—you do not need a "to" before "his companion. I suppose it's technically possible, but it is very rarely used in practice. Other than that, the sentence is fine.

And this is perfectly fine, too. Well done!

All right, let's get to this.

First, for "pondering" there is a really neat mnemonic. If you've ever watched "Pinky and the Brain," the Brain often asks his insane companion "Are you pondering what I'm pondering, Pinky?" You don't need an "on" for this.

Second, you've forgotten the "the."

I can't say I like the sentence structure here—it doesn't feel entirely natural somehow—but it's technically correct. So let's stop here for now and not go into matters of style too deeply.

Next:

First of all, the adjective goes before the noun it's defining. "Sudden halfling" is not equivalent to "sudden question."

Second, "men" is plural, and it's also not a possessive. You want this:

Next:

This is difficult for me to explain; I'm still trying to find the rule I'm correcting this by. I'll get back to you on that, but this is how the first part of the sentence should look like.

The second part of the sentence concerns what is called a comma splice. The comma splice is a mistake where one joins two independent sentences using only a comma. This is wrong and should not be done. You need to either use a semicolon ( or one of the FANBOYS conjunctions: "for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so." So your sentence needs to look like this:

Otherwise it means that he is looking while his eyes are narrowed, but since that's taking only a split second, you're contradicting yourself.

Also, the word "trice" is also quite the rarity! "Moment," "second," or even "split second" would make your text sound less archaic.

And, finally:

This sentence is correct, but the tone is anything but neutral. The "so" at the beginning of a sentence usually implies one of two things: 1) it's used after a pause to rekindle the conversation ("So what are you doing tonight?"); 2) it implies that you have the right to be questioning someone. ("So what are you doing here anyway?")

"Haven't you?" is also a bit hostile in context. It's a challenge to disprove your statement—or prove it right, as the case may be. In any case, it's a challenge.

By themselves, both elements are pretty neutral. Together, they imply Dagmor's bristling.

All right, first things first. Adjectives go before the word you're defining. So:

The rest of the sentence is fine; however, I would use "if" instead of "but." There's no real difference, but "if" is slightly prettier English.

"Bristling" is not a state. It's a verb, an action. If you want the state, it's "hackles raised." If you want the verb, it's "bristled." I'd say the verb is better.

.

Next, the m-dash here is superflous. You need a comma.

.

Note the momentarily--it adds to the transcience of the moment. You can also replace "in a rude manner" simply with "rudely."

.

Ouch! A "rout" in the contemporary context is a military defeat, Dagmor. "A rout is a chaotic and disorderly retreat or withdrawal of troops from a battlefield, resulting in the victory of the opposing party, or following defeat, a collapse of discipline, or poor morale." After you've looked a word up in the dictionary, Google it. Always.

Appropriate here would be something like this:

Or, if you want to be colloquial, "fancy party" would also suffice.

The rest of the paragraph is almost entirely correct, save for the quotation marks. Besides what we already know (that the comma and period always go in quotation marks), there's one more thing.

The scheme goes like this:

"I mean, she said 'blablabla!'"

OR

'I mean, she said "blablabla!"'

You can use either single or double quotation marks to set off quotes. BUT when you have a quote within a quote, you must use the one you didn't choose.

And a little nitpick or two in the last sentence.

That's it. All in all, well done!

First of all, you've got "for" and "to" mixed up a few times.

Here, for example. You can look embarassed to someone, not for someone — just as in your second use. "To Jailin" is correct. Anyway, I would sort of rewrite the sentence so it sounds more English anyway.

Here I'm stressing the "anyone" with a use of "just," and contrasting "would" and "could."

This is OK, but very obviously Russian in origin. Perhaps something like this:

This is correct. I'd use "to top it all off," but both versions of the idiom are feasible.

I'd use a comma after "all in all." Other than that, this is correct. The last sentence is also perfectly fine.

Pretty much OK in structure, but I'd say "somewhat" would work better here instead of "a little bit."

Next: toothsome! Live and learn, first time I've ever seen that word in use. Nice find, but know that it's a rarity. Also, an appetite cannot be tempted—it is not a living, thinking being. And don't forget the punctuation.

Next: if you lose something to someone, it means you used to have it, but no longer—they possess it now. You want "in."

Next: whoops! "To throw up" is a synonym for "to retch" or "to barf." Very wrong choice of words! I assume you meant something like this (although the structure here isn't the best, I'm just trying to get the general meaning)?

Next: "one blow" means "one strike." You didn't hit it with your breath.

The final sentence is ok.