Starting with your form intersections, you're off to a pretty fantastic start here, demonstrating a well developing understanding of how these different forms relate to one another in 3D space. It's normal for students at this stage to be getting much more comfortable with the flat-on-flat, but to still struggle with the curved-on-curved intersections, like a sphere with a cylinder.

Currently your round-on-round intersections aren't perfect, but what I'm seeing is all the pieces coming together. The intersections for them that you're drawing here are definitely exaggerated, but they've got all the right parts. You're transitioning from the sphere's curvature being dominant in the relationship, to the cylinder's curvature being the main driver, and then back to the sphere. I would merely make the middle portion a little less dramatically curved.

One minor point I did want to call out is just to do with the use of line weight - right now you're doing a good job of applying the line weight only where the overlaps occur, though the line weight tends to jump suddenly rather than tapering smoothly as shown here.

Continuing onto your object constructions, your work here is in some ways a little mixed. As far as the core focus of the lesson goes (which is precision, which I'll explain in a moment), you're for the most part doing quite well. But there's a lot of messiness to how you've approached your drawings, which while superficial, does go against some of the principles of the course.

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. It also means, however, that at no point can we (or at least, should we) break away from the construction and go back to treating the drawing as though it is just a drawing on a flat page. We have to constantly work within the structure we've built up, and continuously operate in three dimensions.

So when it comes to building up precision in your constructions, we can see this in how you've built up the structure around the little buttons on this mic, using the techniques from the lesson to identify the center, break down your placement to a specific location along the height of the bounding box, etc. You push it even farther as you push further into the lessons, although there are some small areas where a little more precision can be achieved.

This docked nintendo switch is excellent for the most part, but while you were quite fastidious in placing the thumbsticks, the buttons appear to be more approximate. That is, you picked a point along horizontal/vertical subdivisions, and then kind of eyeballed how big the buttons would be, and how far apart they should be spaced. It's not really a huge issue, but I would definitely encourage you to keep pushing up that threshold for how far you're willing to push the subdivision, how small a detail is going to be before you decide not to establish those elements with more precision.

One thing that helps a lot with this is the fact that you are allowed - and encouraged - to work with ballpoint here. I can definitely see that your use of fineliner for this lesson definitely does cause things to get a little cramped in the tighter elements, and ballpoint would definitely help with that.

So when it comes to the areas that are messier, it's really stuff like this jug where you've broken away from the repeatable, consistent markmaking approaches and rules we use throughout this course. So for example, I'm not really sure what you're going for with this really thick edge. Is it formshading? It shouldn't be, as back in Lesson 2 we discussed that this would not play a role in our drawings throughout this course. Is it meant to be line weight? Line weight should be kept very subtle and light, and be focused on our areas of overlap, as discussed previously. Is it cast shadow? Cast shadows have to be cast upon another surface and cannot cling to the silhouette of the form casting it.

I suppose the only other consideration is that you might be trying to hide or correct a mistake, which also shouldn't be done throughout this course. Always remember that the drawings we're doing here are exercises - they're not something we're going to show off, and so mistakes are just par for the course. They'll happen, and it's more important that they remain visible so I can assess whether it's just a one-off slip-up or if it needs to be addressed, and so you yourself can identify them and work on them yourself.

There are definitely other areas where some of your line weight does get pretty aggressive - so always remember to keep it subtle, like a whisper to the viewer's subconscious, and always apply it (and really any tool) towards a specific goal of which you are conscious and aware.

One thing that may have resulted in some confusion is the strong black bars I used in the bluetooth speaker demo (which we can see here). What I was doing there does follow a particular kind of logic and purpose - because we're dealing with a rounded corner on a box, without some additional visual information, it may not be as clear that the corner is rounded. It may well be fine without it, but I made the call there to add the hatching to make it moreso. Were I dealing with a more obvious primitive (like a more cylindrical structure like your jug), I would have left the additional hatching out because such a structure would already have enough information (through the various ellipses that make up that structure) to be clear to the viewer.

But, as with all things, this is a measured decision, one where I weighed what I was after against how I could best achieve that goal. I feel that in your work, you may have seen this as an OK to be more organic and experimental with your presentation, sneaking in more shading/rendering and so on. You can read more about the use of hatching here.

So! All in all I think you're good to move onwards, so I'll go ahead and mark this lesson as complete - be sure however to be more purposeful with the way you use your marks in the future. Ideally, if I were to point to any mark in your drawing, you should be able to answer the following:

• What job did this mark try to accomplish

• How did you approach this mark so it could accomplish that task as effectively as possible

• Were there any other marks that were already accomplishing the same task?

These are also the questions we ask ourselves throughout the planning phase of the ghosting method, which of course is applied to every structural mark we execute throughout the drawings for this course.