So, something to be aware of is that all those things like compass roses and grids and the chequed border that you often see on maps are functional parts of the map that say things about it, and it's possibly for them to say contradictory or nonsensical things.
Looking at the landforms, it seems like this is probably meant to be a Mercator projection, but the square grid (graticule) and even spacing of the chequed border suggest it's a cylindrical equidistant projection. However the aspect ratio is wrong for that and the chequed border doesn't line up with the graticule. You also have a compass rose suggesting the map is bearing preserving which would be appropriate for a Mercator map but not a cylindrical equidistant one.
There's also a bit of a missmatched quality to the map. It is broadly designed as a fairly modern looking reference map but then you have some bits trying to look archaic like the texture and mountain symbols, and then other elements like the way graticule and text halos are drawn as precise light lines over the background texture which are aggressively obvious as being done with a computer. It makes it feel like it doesn't know what it's trying to be.
One other thing is that you have roughly circular continents centred on each pole. That's not impossible but it does look rather suspicious. Earth currently has one somewhat less circular continent somewhat less centred on one pole. That's just happenstance though. The chance that a planet would have two at once is really low, and yet fantasy map makers do it all the time so it really draws attention to itself as looking fake. There are ice caps, but they are variable, if you look at maps that show them you'll see they are represented differently from coastlines, usually smooth and simplified and often with a dashed line to indicate that they are generalized from a varying shape.