Technically you got your work in about 33 minutes after my cut-off for this session of critiques (I do the critiques twice a week), but I figured I'd let it sneak under the wire anyway. So let's get started.

So overall, you say you struggled a great deal (which I certainly believe), but your results have come out quite well, demonstrating a good grasp of most of the spatial relationships involved. It's not uncommon for students to be hypercritical of themselves, or to dwell too much on certain issues that may not actually be all that significant. Not to say that things couldn't be improved, but this is precisely why receiving critiques from someone else is so important.

Starting with your organifc forms with contour lines, these are mostly looking pretty solid. For the most part the sausages themselvse adhere to the characteristics of simple sausages (aside from the odd form where one end is larger than the other), and you're doing a good job of wrapping the contour lines around the rounded forms.

Continuing onto your insect constructions, as I mentioned above you're mostly doing a good job, though there are a few things I do want to point out.

First and foremost, I do agree that the legs could indeed be better, and one way in which they can be improved is that you're not actually fully applying the sausage technique in its entirety. In most cases you appear to be entirely skipping the step of adding a contour line to define the intersection between the sausage segments, as shown in the middle of this diagram. All the steps of the sausage method - from drawing simple sausage shapes, to giving them a healthy overlap, and finally to reinforcing the connection between them - are critically important to its success.

Now aside from this, you have been mostly consistent in applying the sausage method to all of your insects' legs, which is good to see. Many students deviate from it when they see legs that don't quite appear as though they match up with it. Instead, as you appear to understand, the sausage method serves to lay down a base structure for all legs, upon which we can then add additional bulk as shown here, here, and even here in a dog's leg, to flesh things out as needed.

In this regard, I do feel that you left most of your insects' legs to be quite simplistic, and missed ample opportunity to build up more nuance and complexity through the addition of further simple forms. There were some cases where your insects had little spikes or serrations along their legs. In those you appear to have added them more as flat shapes or extensions of the form's silhouette (basically operations occurring in the two dimensions of the page). Instead, adding these spikes as 3D forms as shown in this crab claw demo would be considerably more successful, as it respects the idea that every single mark we add to a drawing ought to represent a new 3D form being added to the construction.

To that point, there is one other major issue I want to address. As you can see in this image and this one, you've basically started out with a larger form than you intended, placing it within the world, and then decided to place another form on top (or modify its silhouette) to better suit your purposes.

This is a problem because it breaks the rule that every single mark we draw is to define a solid, 3D form in the world. By then acting like the form you introduced into the world no longer exists, you introduce a contradiction into your drawing that then undermines the viewer's suspension of disbelief. Similarly, even if you're just "tweaking" the silhouette, that silhouette exists in two dimensions - like the footprint left behind by a creature walking by. The footprint can tell you things about the animal itself, but if you mess with it after the fact, you're not going to change the nature of the animal. You're just going to make the footprint a lot less useful.

Long story short, every change you make to a form must be conducted in 3 dimensions, as shown here. Now in most cases this kind of subtractive construction doesn't work well with organic forms, so you're usually better off building things up from smaller forms, wrapping additional forms around them to work your way up to your intended complexity. What you don't want to do is draw something and then cut across it in the two dimensions of the page itself.

The last point I wanted to mention is a minor one - you have a tendency to fill the eyes of your insects with solid black, likely because you see them as being black in your reference. As a rule, it's better to save your filled black shapes only for cast shadows - filling in entire forms tends to flatten them out (a little less so with the specular highlight you added, but since there's no other texture being added, it tends not to work properly).

Aside from those issues, your drawings are largely doing a good job of building up these creatures as they exist in 3D space. I'm very pleased with how you handle a lot of the exoskeletal segmentation, wrapping contour lines around your structures and using them to build up those layers in an effective, believable manner. As to the wings, they're mostly fine - as long as you keep them simple and don't overcomplicate them with detail, they're hard to mess up (largely because they're just flat things anyway).

So! I've laid out a number of things for you to keep in mind, but I'm happy with your results. I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete.