Hi VerdanChanger, I will be offering up some critique for your submission.

Lets start with your cylinders constructed around a minor axis. They are pretty well executed, my one concern is that you don’t vary the foreshortening on the cylinders very much. You either have very, very subtle line convergence to the point where it looks like they are perfectly parallel (which should be avoided) or a small to medium degree of convergence. I would like to see some cylinders that converge more drastically, and especially some ones where the ellipses of the cylinder are much closer together and even overlapping each other, sort of like in this image:

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/365180330103013388/981605040991109120/Untitled.jpg

Also, I want to point out that the degree shift on most of your cylinders is incorrect. The side of the cylinder that is further away from you will always have a wider degree then the one that is closer. For most of your cylinders, you did the opposite. This is pretty important for you to get correct, so make sure you understand it:

https://drawabox.com/lesson/250cylinders/1/degree

Lastly, let’s talk about your cylinders constructed in boxes. The cylinders in boxes are for the most part well executed and you seem to have a decently good understanding of perspective, your lines converge pretty well. You forgot a couple important lines in the error checking stage of you cylinders, though. In every cylinder, you forgot to extend the sides of the cylinder into the distance, and you sometimes forgot to extend the minor axis that runs through the direct center of the box into the distance as well.

https://drawabox.com/lesson/250cylinders/1/stage2check

Unfortunately, this undermines the purpose of the entire error analysis, and thus the exercise as a whole. 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.

If however you neglect, one, two, or half of the lines that we're extending, then you leave places for those errors to hide and go unnoticed. Thus, the growth and improvement we seek to gain in the assigned work, specifically in honing our estimation of those proportions, is limited at best.

Don’t worry to much, this is a common issue that even I fell victim too when doing the challenge and I have seen other students do the same. Try your best to carefully read the instructions and make sure you are following every step in the future to avoid problems like this, especially for challenges that are so repetitive.

Because of these concerns, I am going to ask for some revisions. Start with 30 cylinders constructed around a minor axis, with much more variety in your forshortening and perspective in each one, and that the degree shift on the further ellipse is correct. Then, do 40 cylinders constructed in boxes, while taking extra care to make sure you apply every error checking line required.