Jumping right in with your cylinders around minor axes, while there are a lot of aspects of your work which are individually done well (so in the sense of one cylinder may do certain things well, and have certain issues, while another cylinder may have an entirely different set of strengths/weaknesses), there are a number of issues that I do need to call out.

• Firstly, when it comes to the execution of your linework, your work varies quite a bit. There are cases where you demonstrate very confident linework (like the side edges of 107 on this page), and cases where your linework is quite hesitant (like 109 on the same page), but what I'm seeing generally suggests that you are not consciously applying the ghosting method in its entirety to your linework. Rather, based on what I'm seeing here, it's likely that you're skipping over the planning phase (where we identify the nature of the mark we wish to make, in the case of straight lines marking out the start/end points), and at times forgetting that the execution phase requires us to commit to the mark we've prepared, without hesitation. The thing is, these are all steps we need to be applying intentionally throughout the course, so that it sinks into our subconscious, influencing the way in which we approach drawing naturally, training the auto-pilot we rely upon when drawing our own things outside of the course. As such, we can't s imply rely on the vibes of applying the methodology, we have to be conscious about how we're working through all three stages for every mark.

• Similarly, I can see that you are aware of the fact that we require students to draw through the ellipses they freehand in this course two full times before lifting your pen, but you frequently fall short of executing them in two full turns. Again, this suggests that you're not applying those methodologies as consciously as you could be and are to some degree relying on the very auto-pilot we are trying to train. I do understand that applying all of this consciously takes a great deal more time than one might find comfortable, but that's simply the nature of what's asked of you here.

• The two points above pertain to general markmaking, which isn't the focus of this challenge. One more substantial issue however that I am seeing come up frequently in your work are circumstances where you've got aspects of the ellipses inverted. To bring up a few examples, 150 on this page, 117, 118, and 119 on this page, 137 and 139 on this page, amongst many others, show us cases where one end is drawn with a smaller overall scale and narrower degree, and the other end is drawn with a larger overall scale and a wider degree. This is incorrect. The end closer to the viewer should feature both a larger overall scale and a narrower degree, and the end farther away f rom the viewer should feature a smaller overall scale and a wider degree. You get this correct in many other cases, but there are still a lot of such cases that come up which have this relationship mixed up, resulting in you placing hatching on the smaller of the two ends to denote that as being closer to the viewer, though the basic principle of perspective tells us that things get larger as they come closer to the viewer, not smaller. The behaviour of the degree (narrower closer, wider farther away) is discussed here in the instructions for this challenge, as well as here back in Lesson 1's ellipses section, so you will want to review those to solidify your understanding of this issue.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, it unfortunately appears that you missed a fairly important instruction when applying your line extensions. I'll explain that in more detail in a moment, but first I want to provide some context as to why these line extensions are so integral to the exercise itself. This exercise is really all about helping develop students' understanding of how to construct boxes which feature two opposite faces which are proportionally square, regardless of how the form is oriented in space. We do this not by memorizing every possible configuration, but rather by continuing to develop your subconscious understanding of space through repetition, and through analysis (by way of the line extensions).

Where the box challenge's line extensions helped to develop a stronger sense of how to achieve more consistent convergences in our lines, here we add three more lines for each ellipse: the minor axis, and the two contact point lines. In checking how far off these are from converging towards the box's own vanishing points, we can see how far off we were from having the ellipse represent a circle in 3D space, and in turn how far off we were from having the plane that encloses it from representing a square.

What you're missing are the minor axis lines for each ellipse, resulting in there being only 4 lines extended down the lengthwise direction. The minor axes are important because they tell us just how accurate of a fit the ellipse is at describing the proportions of the planes that enclose them - if their minor axis lines don't run close to perpendicular to that plane, towards the box's lengthwise vanishing point, then this tells us that what the contact point lines tell us shouldn't carry that much weight in helping us determine how to adjust our approach for the next set. Conversely, if the minor axis lines are aligned fairly close to running in that intended direction, then this tells us that the contact point lines can be trusted (and so we can adjust how we approach the boxes on the next page accordingly to try and address any patterns of behaviour that emerge from analyzing the previous pages).

Unfortunately this does mean that neglecting to follow the instructions as closely as you could have on that front did undermine the effectiveness of the exercise, and I will be assigning revisions to ensure that you understand how to apply this exercise going forward (as will be required for the first part of the challenge as well). You'll find those revisions assigned below.