Feels like there were two reference models used at different sizes, one for the upper body, and the other for the legs.
From the torso up, she's got wonderful features. The skin crease at her armpit, surfaces that have been sun kissed, great highlighting, shading, and immaculate color choices for her hair and face. The lilt of her costume tantalizes like it's going to peel right off of her breast is an especially fine choice of costume design- keeps it classy while referencing the classics.
Perhaps it's due to the position of her arms, bent and pulled to the background, it only emphasizes the disproportionate length of her legs. This is all well and good, being a legs man myself, but this is where it feels like two different models have been merged into one. The tinyness of her only visible foot only further draws attention to the length of her thighs, and how her calves taper down to a narrow ankle.
The frame chops off the other foot, but based on the curvature of the boot at the bottom of the frame, it appears as if the extended leg is shorter than the fully visible leg.
All in all, she is beautiful, and I'd have her painted on the side of a sturdy tractor like a WW2 Bomber's nose art. In my opinion, the piece would have been stronger if it showcased her fully, without chopping off anatomy with the edge of the frame. She could only benefit from calve muscles that matched the training the rest of her legs would've endured, and if there were similar details graced to her legs as her arms were given. Legs that long would have the muscular indication of that quadriceps line going down the side, even if it was a subtle lighting difference.