Not a fan of the lighting nor the composition on frames 6 and 7. In frame 6, the posing and lighting make her look very thick and heavy through the torso, and there's a big ugly shadow cast by her nose. Her arm on the right hand side does not separate from the body,k which is what makes her look so fat I think. Just not a good placement of the light on #6. On shot #7, her being positioned way left in the frame, and also looking left, with all the dead space on the right makes the shot not very elegant or appealing. The cropped-off-at-the-wrist aspect of it and the ugly nose shadow also make this frame kind of a no-go for me. I think these main light placements and results probably result from using speedlights versus studio flash units, where the exact shadow placement is not revealed until the shot is made, since there are no modeling lamps to guide the photographer, or the model, and even small changes in position can affect exactly how and where the shadow will fall.
I like the others pretty much, but kind of wish they were closer-up. We cannot "see" her very well, except in shots #1 and #4, where the camera is pretty close-up to her. I understand that the tin shed siding is kinda' nifty, and makes a strong pattern, and that's interesting to a point, but in the last frame, #8, I'd estimate that her figure represents maybe 5% of the total area of the picture, so I'm not quite sure what the goal of the shot is. Your copyright notice is wider than her body is. Of course, if these were blown up to poster-size, it'd be easier to see her...which is one of the TPF forum limitations--we are forced to view tiny images here, in the era of 24 MP and 36MP captures and broadband net access... Anyway, YMMV. My opinion only.