In regards to the matters of certain lines being lighter and others being darker, I just wanted to reiterate that it's not about ensuring that all your lines are super dark. It's just to ensure that you draw those initial masses the same way you'd apply the rest of your construction, instead of making some marks purposely lighter and less committed than others.

To be completely honest, I don't entirely follow what you're saying in what follows (you're a bit rambly and unclear) but I suspect the core of your question is whether you should be focusing on copying the reference image, or building things up logically based on the forms you've constructed, and the forms you're adding.

The answer is that what we're doing is always informed by our reference image, but our focus at the end of the day is on establishing logically, believable relationships between forms. There may be situations where due to how your drawing has gone, you've deviated in some ways from your reference image. In such situations, it may be tempting to break the rules of reality - that is, realistic relationships between solid forms in our drawings - and just add a complex shape or modify the silhouette of a drawn form in order to get back to copying our reference perfectly. This would be a mistake. Every mark you draw is going to be a solid form that interacts with the existing structure of what you've drawn in 3D space.

Anyway, moving onto your revisions, I'm going to talk about a handful of different things I noticed, but the first issue appears to be that you did not follow (and perhaps did not understand) one of the requirements I stipulated about these revisions:

For these 8 pages, I do not want you to add any of the contour lines that sit along the surface of a single form. The form intersection contour lines are still good to use, and I encourage you to do so.

You used plenty of these contour lines all over your additional masses. Here I've pointed to what I mean. Those contour lines that sit on the surface of a single form, not defining the intersection between forms. I wanted you to set that tool aside, because as I mentioned in my previous critique, you were overusing them. In not being able to use them, the expectation is that you would put more thought into how the additional masses' silhouettes would be shaped.

Here is an analysis of a selection of your revision drawings. I've identified areas where you're still struggling, and areas where you're showing notable improvement. I'm not going to go further in depth here, but I'll direct you at the major issues:

• Your sausage forms, though they improve, are sloppy and more often than not you're still struggling to maintain the characteristics of simple sausages. Slowing down your execution (whilst maintaining a confident stroke - do not hesitate) can help with this.

• You have many cases, though this improves as well, where you have outward curves where a mass is being pressed in upon by another form (ie: where two forms make contact). While it's less prevalent on drawings like the pig, there are still areas where it becomes an issue. You really need to think a lot more about the silhouette of the form and what is causing every little turn or curve or corner in it. Don't just paste it on and hope it can be fixed with contour lines. Contour lines cannot help here, because this is entirely defined by the silhouette of the form.

• Your head constructions tend not to have much time/effort put into defining the eye socket, there's often not enough of a relationship between the muzzle and eye socket, and you don't really construct your eye ball as a sphere before wrapping lids around it.

In all these areas, you're showing improvement, but you have a ways to go. I'd like you to do another 4 pages of animal drawings (one animal each), following the same restrictions I laid out previously.