Scaling the single mountain symbol is a bad idea as it looks obviously scaled. I think you'd get better results by drawing the symbol at each size you need. Even at a single size, they look a bit too perfectly alike. Even if the person drawing/engraving were trying to make them identical, there would be variation.

The graticule and what I think is a river also have an "obviously done with a computer" look. It seems the look you are after is a map that was either printed or inked, and then coloured with a watercolour paint or dye. The graticule doesn't look like something that could be produced that way. I think foll opacity but thin would look more in keeping with the rest of the map. I prefer to try to replicate the map "in order" when attempting this kind of map. I do the drawn/printed part of the map in its entirety, then add the colour afterwards and try to include misregistration, bleed, etc. The river on the other hand has two lines that are very close together and perfectly equidistant, while going around varying curves. That also looks quite computer generated.

Labelling maps well is one of the hardest parts of cartography. There are a few things you've done that should really be avoided.

* Never use deformation to curve labels. Always use a text along path tool. Deformation/envelope transform actually distorts the glyphs. Text along path moves and rotates the individual glyphs to follow the curve. "Fentehirus Mountians" shows quite a bit of deformation for instance.

* Try to avoid splitting labels into multiple "lines". In particular, never stack glyphs on top of one another. (Unless you are using a vertical writing system like that of Chinese) I'm particularly looking at "Oprim". "Delrek Rivi Plains" is also problematic though.

* If you rotate labels from horizontal, also give them a bit of a curve. Text along straight diagonals looks bad. Never curve it back over to the point you have glyphs upside down though.

A few things that aren't necessarily wrong, but might help to change.

* Letter spacing and kerning are your friends, particularly to fit labels around obstacles. Labels for areas and linear features often look best with at least a bit of extra letter spacing. Avoid having glyphs touch things like coastline. If all else fails, make a gap or remove the offending feature, but try to resolve it some other way if at all possible. I'd recommend trying to make it look like the gap was drawn rather than using an "outer glow" type effect on the text.

* Try to stretch area labels over the areas that they label. Use letter spacing to spread them out, and curve them on a path. Sometimes the area is just too big or the name too short. Accept this when it happens and don't increase spacing to the point that the text can't be read any more.

The labels on the graticule are also a bit problematic. The labels on the parallels don't seem to fit in the border, while those on the meridians are hard to associate with their respective meridians. Finer lines would probably help with the meridians. Smaller text, and vertically centring would help on the parallels. You could also try rotating the labels for the parallels (Either radial or along the arc), or moving the meridian labels to the equator (Which again would call for smaller text).