This is nice, but I think you could probably bring it further to a more polished and finished level c:

Everyone is justified to have their opinion, and I have to humbly (yet strongly) disagree in this. Clearly it is not an attempt at photorealism, so bringing it further would mean the same as killing the piece. The usage of colors is vivid and the lines are lively, and the style is unique. All this makes the piece interesting to look at. I fail to see what exactly could be polished here, as it is an extraordinarily beautiful piece as it is.

Yes and you can still retain the colors, you do make an excellent point. But I think maybe darkening the spots or making them slightly more refined could really make this piece more captivating. It may not be "photo"realism but realism nonetheless.
As for you using the term style... are you meaning to say the methodology to create this piece, or the colors, or quick lines that create the texture, or what?

Who knows, maybe more contrast would give a different and stronger mood, however I bet it would be difficult and rather pointless to try to achieve that with pastel pencils, which I think have been used here. My bet is, the darker areas would only lose the texture they have now.

By 'style' I mean how the different components of the piece work together; lines, textures, colors. Because they haven't been used in the usual way, the result is an unique style.

Might I ask, what exactly makes this piece realism? Sure, it is a depiction of an animal that exists in real life, but do they need to be drawn as you actually see them, in the very same contrasts and colors? :/ I would rather see this leopard as a continuum for impressionism than realism.

The overall form is recognized as a real form, it certainly isn't a cartoon. But that is in regards to subject matter, if we look at the rendered makeup of it, it does reflect some impressionistic qualities, but because it shows such a definite form, and there isn't a setting, but a rather plain background, I couldn't call this impressionism itself.
In regards to "style" and "realism" usually people are talking about how the subject matter is rendered. Does it look lifelike, or more abstract?
I think instead of style it would be better to say composition if you mean the components of the piece working together-- it's an element of composition; unity.

Okay. English isn't my native so I could be using the terms in an unorthodox way; I'll just shut up.

haha, no way! Terminology always varies, even between English speaking countries! I am studying abroad in the UK and am native to the USA and not only is the terminology for the art course completely different, but also the terminology for the entire school system.
This has been a very interesting and refreshing conversation and I thank you for it.

Agreed with Korpin, it's the sketchy, unpolished work that makes it so wonderful.
It has a lot more character this way than yet another smooth, photo realistic rendering.

Thanks for criticism, but I consider this work finished.

"Beautiful watercolor!"

Awesome work!

I've been totally captivated by this piece. I would love to see more pieces from you done in traditional media! :)

Probably I will show still something from the training material in similar style. If it so is pleasant to people.))

Lovely pencil work.

very pretty

Ooh wonderful. <3

Nice picture man.

it says digital...realy?

And what is similar? =[
I simply have by mistake put not in that category. ><