Her legs still do look extra long here. But I’ll measure up be sure. I’ll use >>2187531 as a reference.
 
On the reference, the top of the head (where the tuft starts) down to the corner of the crotch gives: 145×1749, pt: 1755.000  
Then from that point down the inner leg, to the knee, then down to the shoe. 112×720, 151×986, pt: 728.659, 997.495
 
This makes her legs (728.659+997.495)/(1755+728.659+997.495)  
= 49.59 % of the body length.
 
Then for your image:  
Upper body: 89×748, pt: 753.276  
Legs: 11×438, 6×429, pt: 438.138, 429.041
 
This makes her legs (438.138+429.041)/(753.276+438.138+429.041)  
= 53.51 % of the body length.
 
That’s 53.51/49.59 = 8% longer than they should be. That’s not much, but apparently enough to make it look weird.

@Matt23  
Tell that to the original makers.  
Teehee

Not bad, but try making the legs less long