First of all: congratulations for delurking with a map, especially with a map of these proprotions and level of workmanship.
It is obvious that you put a lot of work into this map, and from the practical side I'd say it came out very well. But on the other hand, I fear that you have a huge number of clashes in style and composition in this map, which makes it rather difficult for me to appreciate it fully.
Where to start?
The first think I noticed where the ornamental ships filling the seas, especially because I am trying to find a way to do these without using cliparts. You did them very nicely.
But these ships were trappings mostly used in 17th century maps, in their use as ornamentations as well as the type of ships portrayed. You combine them with airships and 19th century clippers. Ask yourself: why would a cartographer do that? (Well, a fantasy cartographer in a fantasy world might do all kind of thing... but you should have an explanation of his reasons, just in case a nitpicker like me comes around.)
Similar case of style clash: the height-line-style you use to depict your mountainous areas and the symbol-style you use for the forests, jungles and deserts. Again, different types of styles from different periods of map-making.
Next problem: what is that map depicting at all? The style reminds one of the hemispherical projection worldmaps. But according to your gridlines, the projection is pole standing. But this would not fit with the naming of several regions (for example, on a pole standing hemispherical map, your outer border would represent the equator. But your bottom-most sea is named "Great SOUTHERN ocean").
Hemispherical maps are also not directionally true - whether pole or equator standing. So the addition of a compass rose does not make any sense.
All in all I would say: a map well done in execution but poor in conception.