Starting with your form intersections, I can see that when it comes to flat-on-flat intersections, you're doing quite well, but you tend to apply the same approach of working largely with straight lines when dealing with flat-on-round intersections, like this box/cylinder intersection. As you can see in these corrections, that intersection would involve curved lines instead.

One way to think about these more complicated intersections is to break the intersection itself - that is, the relationship between the cylinder and the box - into its base components. On that page, I drew some curving arrows to denote how the relevant surface of the cylinder flows through space. Similarly, there are two planes of the box which are relevant to the intersection - the top and left planes. By breaking it down like this, we can specifically see which surfaces intersect between the forms, which in turn helps us better follow the contour line that will run along the surface of each form simultaneously, giving us our resulting intersection. Now this is of course easier said than done - but breaking it into components like this can make it a somewhat easier problem to solve.

I did want to note that some of your markmaking here was a little sloppy at times. The pyramid on the far left of that same page was rather difficult to make sense of, in no small part due to the side edges not all meeting at the same apex. It is pretty normal for ellipses to get loose when drawing larger circles though (as is needed for our spheres), but it can help to make a point to draw these from your shoulder, using your whole arm, while also using the ghosting method to ensure a confident execution preceded with more intentional planning.

Continuing onto your object constructions, those similar issues with markmaking do continue to be present into the rest of your work for this lesson. This raises two key issues:

• Firstly, I think you're putting marks down without necessarily thinking things through - resulting in a lot of additional marks. This tells me that while you may be applying certain aspects of the ghosting method (I can see the various endpoints you've drawn), you're not necessarily investing as much time into the planning and preparation phases - that is, where we identify the specific nature of the mark we want to make, rotate the page to find a comfortable angle of approach, and so on. It is a patient process that takes time, and from what I can see here, you are not really giving it as much time as is required to execute the work to the best of your current ability. We can even compare this to some of your work from Lesson 2 where your lines were crisp and intentional, showing far more investment of time.

• Secondly, this lesson allows and encourages you to use a ruler, along with other helpful tools (like ballpoint pen instead of fineliner) as you'll note here in the instructions. I can understand that most students will find it prohibitively expensive to get their hands on a full set of ellipse guides (this is something we hope to address by producing our own eventually), but a ruler is a fairly common implement - and if you can't get one, there are a wide variety of objects that can alternatively be used as straight edges. There's really no good reason not to use a ruler for this lesson, aside from not seeing that it was allowed. And of course, if that was missed, then that goes hand in hand with the markmaking issue, being a problem of not taking your time. It takes time to execute our marks to the best of our ability, and it also takes time to read the instructions and absorb them fully.

Ultimately this lesson as a whole is a time consuming one. Where Lessons 3-5 are quite forgiving, allowing us to draw our forms without specifically establishing our intent ahead of time, this lesson is the first one where we introduce the concept of precision. 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.

While I can certainly see you employing some of the techniques from the lesson notes (mainly finding the center of your planes, in cases like this object (albeit somewhat sloppily, given how the vertical center lines you drew there did not pass through the center point), you are for the most part relying on a lot of eyeballing and approximation. There are a lot of objects here where applying the approach of first doing side and front orthographic studies (as introduced here in the computer mouse demo) would have helped you better understand exactly where along the different dimensions of each object different things would sit.

For example, if we take a look at this ladle, there's a hole at the end of the handle. In your reference object, that hole sits at a specific position along the length of the handle. Here I've put together an example of first looking at the handle in an orthographic plan, subdividing it down to find a reasonably close set of proportions that I can then apply to the 3D construction. I found that splitting the handle in half, then into thirds, then all the way down to twelfths at the end with the hole would give me a fairly close idea of where the hole should go.

Note that I'm not at all concerned about how accurate to reality this actually is - my concern is that you plan out and declare your intention first. This shows forethought and planning.

Looking at this mug, I wanted to take the opportunity to talk about how you tackled the handle. As explained here, just jumping in with an arbitrary curve isn't really a great way to establish a solid, believable structure. Curves are just too vague and arbitrary. So, instead, we start out with a boxier structure, representing the curves as a chain of straight edges, then rounding them out as shown here.

As a whole, I really don't feel like you've put your best foot forward here. But fortunately, such mistakes are not permanent. I am however going to ask for a full redo. Take your time, use the tools you have at your disposal, go through the instructions more carefully, and when you're done, submit it as a new submission (which will cost 2 credits).