Well, you started off with a beautiful, young woman, so that makes everything bad a lot less-bad than otherwise. SHoes? awesome! Foot tat? NICE! Faded, tight jeans???? AWESOME! Hair? Gorgeous!!! Makeup? Simple, good foundation, appropriate color for her hair, good lip color, eyebrows look great. Accessories--minimal and tasteful, timeless. Early-spring trees and empty railroad track with decent lighting? All good. The one,single thing that really kills these is that shirt...the straight line of the shirt from armpit down to the waist of the jeans in #3 makes her look very thick through the torso.
The shirt looked great in-person, I can tell. But on-film??? Not so much. The shirt adds like 25 pounds, visually, and that just ain't right! As amolitor mentioned, the shoes are pretty cool-looking. In shot #3, the foot chop and the shirt together hurt the shot.
Let's take a look at shot #8: that arms up, coy pose, shot head-to-waist-to-feet would have looked awesome as a "tall" frame. That is a classic feminine outdoor beauty pose that goes back decades, and she pulls it off well, but it's NOT a "wide" pose...it's a tall pose, from that camera position.
This shoot is good on 9 out of 10 metrics. If it were re-shot with a shirt that showed off her waist, in the same shoes and jeans and hairstyle, watch and earrings, it'd be a grand-slam home run. As shown, I'm gonna give it an RBI double!