No worries about the rotation - while it can be a bit of a pain for some lessons, especially when all the pages are oriented incorrectly, in this case since the forms are rotating freely it's a non-issue.

So! Starting with your ellipses around arbitrary minor axes, you've done a great job. Your linework is confident and smooth, and you've put a lot of time and effort into identifying the 'correct' orientation of all your ellipses, based on their true minor axes. Also, while you did focus more on fairly shallow foreshortening, there was always some convergence (some students will incorrectly enforce a complete lack of foreshortening which would of course be wrong), and you do have some more dramatically foreshortened cylinders in there as well.

One thing I look for in particular, especially with the more foreshortened cylinders, is whether the student understands the relationships between the two ellipses - specifically, the shifts that occur in scale, and in degree. That is, the ellipse closer to the viewer is always larger overall, and narrower in degree, and the ellipse farther away is smaller in scale, but wider in degree.

The key thing I look out for is whether students have these two shifts operating in equal measure, or whether they are inconsistent and unconnected. In your work, it appears to be the former - as you impose a greater shift in scale, with the far end getting much smaller and the side edges converging more, you match it with an appropriate widening of that far end. This is correct, because both shifts represent the foreshortening of the cylinder, and help inform the viewer as to how much of the form's actual length exists in the "unseen" dimension of depth. If one shift should suggest more foreshortening, and the other should suggest less, that would result in a visual contradiction - one that you knew well enough to avoid, so good work.

Continuing onto your cylinders in boxes, you appear to have done a similarly good job. You're doing a good job of keeping the convergences of your various sets of lines in mind when constructing the boxes, and while there's still room to grow in this area, you're making great progress. You're also quite thorough in checking the line extensions of your ellipses themselves, although I did notice that you could have stood to extend the minor axes much further, matching the extension of the box's edges. You kept those lines quite short, so it was easier to overlook their misalignment at times. You often also had the arrowheads on their ends pointing towards the viewer - for the purposes of this exercise, and in general, it's best to avoid that and always have them point away from the viewer.

The reason this matters is that this exercise focuses on developing one's instincts for creating boxes that specifically feature two opposite ends which are roughly square in proportion. We do that in the same way the box challenge develops our awareness of keeping lines parallel in 3D space (by minding their convergences in 2D). When the ellipse's own line extensions converge towards the box's vanishing points, we know that the ellipse represents a circle in 3D space, and therefore the plane enclosing it must too be a square. Conversely, when those convergences are off, we know to adjust them to bring them more in line in the next page of boxes/cylidners. If, however, the minor axes are allowed to go less noticed due to not being as extended as the others, we can end up with an area that needs work, but without realizing it we might not focus on them appropriately.

That said, you've still made really solid progress here. just be sure to extend them further when practicing this in the future.

So! I'll go ahead and mark this challenge as complete. Keep up the good work.