I think this piece is funny. My first impression was 'Oh, it's chrysalis in some cute pose', but a closer look made me realize '... wait. This is a dolled version of her."
It might be worth mentioning that some of the highlights suggest something very smooth. As far as I've figured lighting the rougher the surface, the larger and weaker the highlights. But, it's probably better to find a reference instead of trying to think.
I found this pic of a plush that happens to have a hair ribbon: [link] Apparently, minky doesn't have highlights, but satin does. (Also, I think it's funny that eye highlights looks more like white spots instead of an actual highlight.)
Then, there's color theory about having warm shadows/cool lights or cool shadows/warm lights. Your shading isn't entirely monochromatic, which is totally a good thing. That totally prevents your work from being more lifeless than needed. We might be able to push the hue contrasts more... maybe.
Yeah, I think our usual habit of adding highlights to hair and eyes while totally fine but isn't good to apply on dolls. It doesn't quite make the intended impression because the use of highlights makes her look like the actual character than a doll.
On the critic and highlights. I do like that an attempt to highlight and still go with the plush was attempted, the highlights on the body ar very soft, if you adds some texture to your highlights to show the pattern of the weave, very very slightly it would be spot on. Highlights, texture and brightness will tell more about your material then anything else.