What is concidered to be the proper stucture for a program

Well, I'm afraid to say, I see very little value in this article. In brief, it's way too eclectic. Why emphasizing some expect and neglecting others (even if you cannot cover all aspects). It's just a set of claims, without any reasoning. Some items are questionable, some are commonly understood incorrectly, so it would be good to clarify or offer alternative view on them. Most importantly, the creative part of the development is neglected; the article maintains the common illusion "follow cookbook recipes and the work will be done". And, most importantly, the article itself, as far as I can see, lacks original conception.
—SA

Thank you for understanding. I doubt it's very fruitful topic for an article, in general. It's good that you can motivate your point, but my note on each would be: "what's the value of it, from the publication standpoint?"

(One more problem: some of the items you mentioned intersect or covered by one or more S.O.L.I.D. principles, which are well-known, but you fail to reference them. In influential peer-reviewed scientific journals such lack of referenced would be more then enough to turn down the submitted publication.)

I would rather advice to pay attention to every technique you devise or use, from the standpoint of maintainability, readability, flexibility, preserving the value of the code as an assert, and so on. Then you can come to some separate cases, positive or even negative, which might be interesting enough to make it as a pattern or anti-pattern. Then it would be interesting for the readers. The article should make some of the reader thinking "hm… but this is an idea I would like to try". Even if you have only one point, it can be good enough for the article.

I would really advice to leave all kinds of itemized sets of advice and similar reviews to your own records. I understand that it sounds discouraging, but this is what I think.

One special concern is design patterns. You article lack criticism of them. If you don't have anything against them, you still need to refer to well-known criticism of the idea to use them. I'm one of the people criticizing not particular patterns (some deserve separate criticism, some are very good), but the idea of using them the way many take. I'm even tend to come to the conclusion that, effectively, many pattens, good by themselves, contributed to the present sorrowful state of software development in many teams. Sometime, it looks like disaster. People tend to think that using the patterns is either their obligation or virtue. The try to stick their code in Procrustean bed of some patterns, wasting time, cluttering valuable code, forgetting the real goals of their product. As if their goal was pleasing the author of one or another pattern. I saw one project which I had to fix, where the authors tried to stick in probably all patterns they learned, which actually resulted in using nearly all well-known anti-patterns. I would say, the biggest anti-pattern was using those patterns. And you did not even mention a single anti-pattern...

—SA