Not having an ellipse guide for this lesson is fine - it does however end up being more important for the 25 wheel challenge and part of lesson 7 (specifically the approach we use to construct 3D unit grids), and as noted in those lessons/challenges' instructions, a "master ellipse template" is entirely sufficient (as opposed to a full set, which can get pretty expensive).

Anyway! Jumping in with your form intersections, as a whole your work here is definitely exceeding what we generally expect from students at this stage. At this point it's normal for students to be pretty confident and comfortable with intersections between flat surfaces, but to still have some confusion when curved surfaces are added to the mix. That's normal, given that the exercise exemplifies the very concept the course as a whole is designed to teach (spatial reasoning), and the exercise does come up again in Lesson 7, but while your work here definitely exceeds our expectations by a good bit, there are still some corrections that I've noted here for you to look through. Most commonly I noticed that you frequently would use straight lines for your intersections when the curving part of a cylinder was involved, suggesting that you weren't necessarily thinking about the specific surfaces intersecting at all times.

This diagram may help to reinforce what it is we're thinking about when navigating our intersections - though I think, based on your work, that you likely already understand this, and that those slip-ups may have been cases where you weren't necessarily paying as much attention as you could have been.

Continuing onto your object constructions, your work here is frankly very well done. You've done an excellent job of sticking to the core principles of the lesson, which focus primarily on the concept of precision and what we can do to increase its presence in how we approach our constructions. Precision is often conflated with accuracy, but they're actually two different things (at least insofar as I use the terms here). Where accuracy speaks to how close you were to executing the mark you intended to, precision actually has nothing to do with putting the mark down on the page. It's about the steps you take beforehand to declare those intentions.

So for example, if we look at the ghosting method, when going through the planning phase of a straight line, we can place a start/end point down. This increases the precision of our drawing, by declaring what we intend to do. From there the mark may miss those points, or it may nail them, it may overshoot, or whatever else - but prior to any of that, we have declared our intent, explaining our thought process, and in so doing, ensuring that we ourselves are acting on that clearly defined intent, rather than just putting marks down and then figuring things out as we go.

In our constructions here, we build up precision primarily through the use of the subdivisions. These allow us to meaningfully study the proportions of our intended object in two dimensions with an orthographic study, then apply those same proportions to the object in three dimensions.

You've leveraged your orthographic plans to great effect, and have similarly demonstrated a great deal of care and patience in their application to your 3D constructions. While there are some concepts, primarily the handling of complex curves that didn't come up in the objects you chose (that's not a problem, I'm just mentioning it to make sure that you're aware of those notes), you've done a fantastic job of applying all of the mirroring and subdivision, and have leveraged it very effectively.

I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete. Keep up the good work.