Your submission for lesson 3 was for the most part quite well done and held to the principles of the course quite well. This one however, has a lot of shortcomings, and I'll try to address each of them one by one.

• The biggest one is that you're working very heavily from memory, rather than direct observation of your reference. This is a very common mistake we make when we dive deeply into construction, because we tend to feel that it's a replacement for needing to study our references closely, but this is not the case. Because you're not studying your reference as frequently as you should be, your constructions end up coming out heavily simplified. For example, let's look at your fighting beetle, and compare it to what was likely your reference image. There are enormous differences - from the lack of the upper horn's double-prongs, to the entirety of its head. The proportions are also off, with the legs being very small. Now you may have misunderstood what the homework assignment meant by "purely constructional drawings". What that means is that we only focus on building up our forms without any texture. For the louse demo, that'd correspond to this second-last step. So, to start, you need to spend most of your time observing your reference - not relying on your memory. If you don't remember the explanation of observation vs memory from lesson 2, I'd recommend rereading it here.

• Secondly, you haven't been holding to the principles of construction being about building things from simple to complex by first introducing simple forms, defining how they relate to one another in 3D space as solid entities, and then building upon them with more forms to gradually reach greater levels of complexity. For example if we look at this section from this ant, that is very clearly a complex form with all kinds of things going on that you drew in - then attempted to turn into a more solid form by adding contour lines. That is not at all what we're doing here - we don't draw arbitrary shapes and them make them complex. We draw simple forms because they are ones that are going to be the most believably solid and three dimensional on their own. In our constructions, we don't "imbue" our forms with solidity and three dimensionality - we start out with it, and only ever risk losing it by jumping too deep into complexity too soon.

• Thirdly, in a number of these you totally break away from the idea of building up your constructions with those early masses (head, thorax, abdomen) and just went your own way with drawings like this european firebug. Again, this leads to overly complex forms far too soon.

• In cases like this dragonfly you didn't draw through the ellipse for its thorax - drawing through our ellipses is important because it keeps them evenly shaped, which eliminates stiffness/complexity and makes them more believably 3D. I'm not going to get into explaining these because I feel there are more fundamental issues you need to sort out by going through the lesson again, but here are some redline drawings I did for another student who also tried a dragonfly.

• I noticed that you seem to have employed a lot of different strategies for capturing the legs of your insects. It's not uncommon for students to be aware of the sausage method as introduced here, but to decide that the legs they're looking at don't actually seem to look like a chain of sausages, so they use some other strategy. The key to keep in mind here is that the sausage method is not about capturing the legs precisely as they are - it is about laying in a base structure or armature that captures both the solidity and the gestural flow of a limb in equal measure, where the majority of other techniques lean too far to one side, either looking solid and stiff or gestural but flat. Once in place, we can then build on top of this base structure with more additional forms as shown here, here, this ant leg, and even here in the context of a dog's leg (because this technique is still to be used throughout the next lesson as well). Just make sure you start out with the sausages, precisely as the steps are laid out in that diagram - don't throw the technique out just because it doesn't immediately look like what you're trying to construct.

All in all, I don't feel that you really focused on applying the material from this lesson, and that for the most part you went off on your own way. Perhaps you were somewhat excited or overwhelmed by the topic of this lesson - it's not abnormal for students who are struggling to panic and just do whatever they feel is right, but that is not the correct response. Instead, if you get overwhelmed, take a step back, and review what you know. Go back to the lesson, look at the demonstrations, and try to draw parallels between what you're attempting to draw and how those things are approached there.

I'd like you to do this lesson again, and to post it as a completely new submission, rather than as a revision. This will cost you two additional credits, because it will require a full new critique. I know for a fact you are capable of much better than this - your work in Lesson 3 showed as much, but you've taken a wrong turn here and will need to backtrack a little. Make sure you go through the lesson material and demonstrations again before doing the work.