Starting with your organic intersections, you're doing a good job of drawing these with a good deal of confidence, and in a lot of ways you're achieving some fairly believable, convincing interactions as these forms interact with one another in 3D space. One thing I would however recommend is to try to stick more closely to the characteristics of simple sausages for these. Think of them kind of like filled water balloons - they'll bend under the force of gravity (to slump and sag over the sides of the form beneath them, as shown here), but they shouldn't really be allowed to get so complex as to wobble back and forth like a worm. Sticking to these simpler qualities will help you make the forms feel more solid in the future.

Continuing onto your animal constructions, your results vary from case to case, but I can see plenty of examples where you're doing a particularly good job in establishing how the additional masses you add to your constructions pile upon one another, creating strong, believable relationships between them. One area where this stands out in particular is how you've built up the masses on this page - I really like how they seem to pile atop one another, interacting clearly in 3D space rather than simply being stamped down on top of one another on the flat, 2D space of the drawing. I also feel you did a great job of this along this horse's torso. As a whole, that horse came out very well, even though it does feature some of the issues I'll call out below.

That said, not all of your drawings demonstrate such strong three dimensional relationships between forms, and I think there are a number of reasons that cause some of your drawings to come out much weaker:

• First and foremost, you pretty consistently do worse when you draw smaller. There are two things that we must give each of our drawings throughout this course in order to get the most out of them. Those two things are space and time. Right now it appears that you are thinking ahead to how many drawings you'd like to fit on a given page. It certainly is admirable, as you clearly want to get more practice in, but in artificially limiting how much space you give a given drawing, you're limiting your brain's capacity for spatial reasoning, while also making it harder to engage your whole arm while drawing. The best approach to use here is to ensure that the first drawing on a given page is given as much room as it requires. Only when that drawing is done should we assess whether there is enough room for another. If there is, we should certainly add it, and reassess once again. If there isn't, it's perfectly okay to have just one drawing on a given page as long as it is making full use of the space available to it.

• Time is, indeed, another major factor. On occasion I'll see signs that students may feel that the amount of time they should give to a drawing depends on how much time they have to offer. Maybe one day you've got the whole day to really dig in and give your drawings a lot of time to be divided amongst observation, taking care in the execution of each and every mark (and using the ghosting method), and so on. Maybe another day you've only got 45 minutes, and feel compelled to rush through however many drawings you put down on a single page. In both of these circumstances, it's the external factors which end up deciding whether you will rush or not, and of course this is incorrect. Instead, it should always be the drawing and its own complexity that determines how much time it will demand of you. If that means spending multiple days on a single drawing, then that's simply what it'll take.

• When we limit how much time we have to invest in a drawing, the first thing to suffer is usually observation. You remarked upon struggling with proportion - you're right that it's not something we really dig into much. There are certainly tools one can use to help improve their proportions, but I'm genuinely not concerned with whether a drawing's proportions end up all out of whack. As long as the resulting drawing still feels like something solid and three dimensional, then the proportions being off won't actually undermine its believability. Instead, it'll just make it feel like the thing you were capturing from your reference was itself malformed, and you were just drawing it faithfully. The thing is, achieving that level of believability still requires students to invest lots of time into observing their references, and to do so almost constantly (only looking away for a moment or two, long enough to put down a specific mark or form before returning their gaze to their reference), in order to avoid working from memory. It's when we end up relying on memory and spend less time than is needed to observe (often as a result of rushing or giving ourselves less time than we need), that things start feeling weird to the point of undermining their believability. If you look at this comparison of one of your cat drawings and its reference, there are proportional issues (like the legs and tail being a lot thinner than the reference) but they aren't the main issues. The bigger concern is that you deviated a fair bit from how the cat was posed in the reference - its paws being together instead of apart, its head being somewhat lowered with its shoulders up (making it hunch), and so on. Now, mistakes do happen, and we aren't here to perfectly replicate our reference images, but as those mistakes happen, we end up with more problems to solve. For example, you had to make up the cat's belly area and that back leg. Taking more time to observe your reference beforehand can help reduce the number of additional problems you have to solve, and will help inform your decisions as you move forwards.

• As a side note, one thing you can do to help you with this is to pay attention to the negative spaces and gaps in your reference's pose. As shown here, the cat's pose creates a lot of "negative shapes" between the different parts of its body. If you pay special attention to these, it may give you something more concrete to pay attention to. Admittedly, I do not really like sharing this in the context of this course - while it's a very useful tool, it pushes the student to think in two dimensions (because these negative shapes exist only in the specific 2D image, this cat as seen from a specific angle and doesn't tell us anything about how it's built up in 3D space), and that risks undermining the core principles of the course as a whole. So, I generally find it to be better to just push students to invest the time into their observation (and to find things to pay attention to on their own), and to leave these additional tools/tricks for other more observation-focused courses to introduce.

• Now if you go back to the comparison shot of the cat drawing and the reference photo, I also drew on top of the head. This was not relevant to the comparison, but I did want to point out that you should be using the head construction approach shared here in the informal demos page. As explained at the top of the tiger head demo page, this is basically a temporary place for me to put this very useful explanation of how to think about head construction until I'm able to properly redo the video/demo content. Note specifically how everything fits together like pieces of a puzzle. The eyesockets are drawn large, and with a specific pentagon shape that allows for a "wedge" in which the muzzle can fit along the bottom, and a straighter edge across the top for the brow ridge/forehead to sit upon. When you have those pieces of the head floating more loosely relative to one another as you often approach it, it ends up lacking the kind of grounding where the individual components can actually work to reinforce each others' sense of solidity. There are some places where you've used techniques more similar to this - like this fox. Just be sure to apply it more consistently across the board.

• In that fox's tail, as well as in other places like this bird's wings, you appear to be trying to construct the skeleton first, then to build upon it. It's important to understand that what we're doing here from one lesson to the next isn't actually any different. We're not specifically studying how to draw plants, or insects, or animals - rather, we're looking at the same problem using each subject matter as a different lens. So, understanding that there are bones under the animals' body parts isn't actually relevant here, in the context of this course. Instead, we draw the things we see. Often this requires us to create "base structures" and build upon them (like how we use the sausage method for the legs), but those structures take up as much of the required space as they can, whilst maintaining their simplicity. So where your fox's tail starts with a very narrow tube in the middle, it should really be the full width of the tail. Anything that needs to be added to it should then be introduced as its own separate, three dimensional mass, wrapping around that base structure as we discussed back in Lesson 4. When it comes to applying this concept to wings, I have a couple further demonstrations here and here.

• The last thing I wanted to call out is another point that came up in my critique of your Lesson 4 work. There I pointed out that you weren't making consistent use of the sausage method when constructing your insects' legs, and that continues to be the case here. I understand that you took a significant break somewhere in the middle of your work on this lesson, but when doing so (and even when you don't, just to make sure everything is still fresh in your mind), you should be rereading the feedback you've received previously to ensure that you're not simply repeating the same thing again.

I've outlined a number of things for you to work on here, so I'm going to assign some additional revisions below so you can demonstrate your understanding. Of everything I've called out here, the most important thing is simply to draw bigger. You tend to have far more success on the pages where you've done this already. By drawing smaller, you're ultimately making it harder on yourself than it needs to be. While it may seem unrelated, this can definitely contribute to things like not observing closely enough - when we draw small and rob our brains of the room to think through spatial problems, it makes the sheer overwhelming nature of these complex reference images to become that much harder to deal with.

Of course, there are other concepts you need to apply from previous critiques, and some fresh ones I've called out here - but you'd be surprised what a difference it makes when you give yourself the room to work a little more freely, and to think a little more clearly.