Certainly, I found drawing "Naughty Lass" quite a challenge overall. There's a particular complexity in trying to visualise things in 3D to be able to draw 2D versions from top-down and side-on viewpoints, and deciding exactly which line you'll pick for the cross-section, etc. There isn't an ideal solution, so you end up just picking whatever seems to work better, and hope users/viewers will be able to tell what was intended.

There is a similarity to the cross-sectional views of caves we've discussed before here, though with a ship, you can't usefully vary the line of any sections, as that just makes it still harder to draw for a vehicle.

I'm not saying it will definitely help, as I'm not sure what changes were made when the Ships Annual was updated, as they were drawn only using the original, but I had to handle similar deck-level elements, and other features, when designing "The Naughty Lass" for the Atlas. For ease, you can pick up the deck plans FCW here, and the sideview here, in case those may assist.

Note though that I did "cheat" with the yards, by having them piercing their respective masts, partly because it's a magical vessel, partly because I was trying to avoid needing to show the complexities of the rigging...

Looking at the base drawings you're working from, and dependent on how close a copy you're trying to make of them, it's worth studying things in some detail before going further, and thinking-through exactly what's being shown.

For instance, it looks to me as if the full width of the vessel at the waterline hasn't been included in the top-down plan drawing. There should be a sliver of the broadest part of the vessel's sides visible below the cannon barrels, which obviously isn't shown on the plan view.

As a perhaps more significant element, the masts are not all vertical, but at a slight angle (hence why they're not illustrated as circles on the original plan view), they're not all of the same dimensions, and you seem to have missed the bowsprit entirely (or rather, you have a broad linear piece of wood texture at the angle and placement as shown in the drawing, but drawn as if it were merely a flat piece of the deck). The latter will be especially problematic, as the original drawing doesn't seem to indicate its full length (it should extend well beyond the bows, for instance). There's the further complication that it should have at least one yard suspended below it, partway along, to carry the spritsail. You may have to busk this from the 3D model images in Remy's posting, I suspect - much as with the features of the upper parts of the masts, i.e. any crow's nests (which should probably be shown as the ship's highest "level" in an FRPG drawing). If you're intending a vertical cross-section for the ship too, you'll need to think-through where the yards are on the main masts.

There are other features that would benefit from further consideration (beyond what Sue and Remy already noted) - e.g. the hatch covers - but this is already running longer than I'd intended, and I haven't time for more currently!

The water texture looks rather "busy" to my eye, but that's probably just me.

There is an issue with some of the text however, where the grey glow is blending into the background in places - on roads and buildings, especially where the road edges are outlined with narrow dark lines - e.g. "Petaluma Stockyards" and "The Heart Markets". In other places - e.g. "Northwind House", "Xi Ling's Market Gardens" - the text itself looks somewhat transparent when set above paler backgrounds. This is all based on the Gallery image, incidentally. However, it did look as if there problems with the text in parts of even the lower-res whole-map view posted above here.

The bulk of the city seems a little empty of named places. Maybe even a few major street names might help here, although perhaps a few of the larger or different-looking properties might be named as well/instead?

Well, if we assume the Triangle Flats are residences too, along with those properties surrounding Won Seng Courtyard, that looks to be only about 10% "special" areas/places/properties within the walled city, which seems perfectly reasonable overall (and also treating the walls, gates and wall-towers as separate from this minor exercise).