This link does indeed work! Also, as a side note, I'm going to be using your critique to test a new feature I've been adding to the website. Unfortunately things have been complicated by the fact that imgur is not accessible from the UK (and while students can choose different hosts that suit their needs, we do have a TA based there whose work has been negatively impacted, forcing us to find a solution), so I'm adding the ability for official critique submissions to post their work directly to our system without a third party image host. This also has the benefit of allowing us to ensure that the format in which the work is presented is easy to critique (since situations where we have to click on each individual image definitely increases how much time it takes to provide feedback).

So, if you happen to get multiple notifications, or see multiple replies from me, or see broken links, that's why. All of that will get fixed up, I'm just letting you know in case you see it before I'm able to clean up my inevitable mess.

Alrighty! Jumping right into your cylinders around arbitrary minor axes, your work here is quite well done. You've clearly paid a lot of attention to ensuring that you've covered a wide variety of rates of foreshortening, ranging across the gamut from very shallow (but never fully parallel, which is great to see - many students miss this despite the reminder in the lesson material) to more dramatic, and I'm pleased to see that in such cases with dramatic foreshortening like number 100 on this page, you seem to have realized that the greater the shift in overall scale from the closer end to the far end, the greater the shift in the degree as well.

This is something I actually leave students to realize on their own initially, as such things tend to stick better in one's mind. Of course I explain the mechanics behind it afterwards either way, but I find giving students the chance to come to certain realizations - whether consciously or subconsciously - has some benefits.

So the reason that these two shifts work in tandem - the more one is pushed to the extreme, the more the other goes to the extreme with it - is because they both serve to convey the same information. The scale shift and the degree shift both tell us how much foreshortening is being applied, or in other words, how much of the length of the cylinder can be measured directly on the page, and how much exists in the "unseen" dimension of depth. As such, they must both tell the same story, and so the more the scale shift tells us that there's a significant portion of the cylinder that we can't measure directly on the page, then the more the degree shift should agree with that.

While you've generally been pretty fastidious in identifying the true minor axes of your cylinders, I did notice that there were cases - often with wider degree ellipses - where your red marks weren't actually entirely correct, as we see here. So be sure to keep a closer eye on those minor axes, and take a little more time when marking them out.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, your work is by and large well done, with just one minor point to keep in mind - which I'll explain in a moment. First, some context. 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.

So the minor issue I wanted to call out is that currently you're only identifying your ellipses' minor axes, rather than extending them fully back as the instructions require. This will make it harder to easily identify cases where the ellipses' alignments are off, which is a key way to help us interpret how relevant the findings based on our contact point lines are. Ensuring that we're able to notice more significant problems at a glance (which is much easier when the minor axes are extended as far back as the other lines) helps a great deal.

Anyway, all in all, very solid work. I'll go ahead and mark this challenge as complete, just be sure to keep the points I've raised in mind.