The style seems to be pretty standard. Mountains look like mountains, it's easy to tell land and water apart, there seems to be little icons for settlements. The image quality is atrocious, so I can't see much detail, but what I can see looks fine. Style-wise.

Realistically, geographically, there's a lot of things wrong with it. The coastlines have a fair amount of detail to them, but not the realistic kind. Real coastlines are shaped by tectonics, climate and currents. The edges of continents tend to have much fewer large bays and islands (e.g. Africa), unless those edges are underwater (e.g. Europe). Mountains form when tectonic plates collide (e.g. Himalayas), or from volcanic activity which happens along the edges of plates (e.g. Hawaii).

You either haven't drawn rivers, of you've drawn rivers that don't go very far. If it's the latter, you're doing it wrong. Rivers tend to lead from high elevation to low elevation, joining up with other rivers on the way downhill, usually terminating in a sea or the ocean. They don't split, they merge. The exception is in flat areas, with rivers carrying a lot of sediment, in which case they'll form a delta (e.g. the Nile delta). Small scale splits can happen, typically creating islands in the river, either because of natural undulations in the river's path, or because of differences in hardness in the terrain; but these are small-scale things, not stuff you'd expect to see on a map of a continent. Which I assume yours is.

Can't rate it without establishing a standard. For a first, it's pretty good. For a proper, it's not terrible, but not that good either. Do more research, look at more maps, and keep drawing.