>>7597755
there are three vanishing points for some reason, and the architecture doesn't conform to a logical perspective. it seems you're freehanding it without thought (fine) or intuition (bad because you need intuition to compensate for lack of thought)
assuming the archway converges to somewhere roughly on the black line and gives us our horizon, we're looking at a very low view angle looking up at the figure from below, but she's facing us like as if we were at eye level with her. if we WERE at eye level (assuming an eye level of 180cm) she'd be >3.5 meters (>11 feet) tall, yet she's still minuscule compared to the archway (barely two and some blocks tall, which means the archway would be ~8m/26' tall). the corpse on the staircase, though, looks like it's conforming to our archway-based eye level in that perspective, which makes the figure look gigantic again

with B i wanted to indicate that the base of the walls follows a different perspective from the light, whereas C is meant to draw attention to the fact that the archway is completely broken relative to the perspective clues we're given.

if you're going to make a scene like this, id suggest first drawing it in perspective using boxes to limit characters, and then only drawing into those boxes. figures must also conform to perspective otherwise things look subtly wrong/off in ways that are hard to get if you're not already thinking in terms of underchin/curvature of the belt/etc