DL: Dude, that's Art Nouveau, not Baroque (and an excellent example of what Art Nouveau means, while we are at it).
Dude, no.
While my submission is by far my least favorite (done in a rush, not what I wanted to do initially), it has no art nouveau elements (besides maybe the subject, but that would be sexist).
Art nouveau happened three centuries later and its essence was impulsed by the proto-advertising era and the rise of new printing technology.
The thick contours
(1), rich color palette
(2), (sometimes) floral motifs actively merging with the subject
(3), plain colors over elaborate strokes and shades
(4), clever use of lettering
(5), are all lacking here.
My hurried approach at baroque tried to incorporate elements of opulence, delicacy, naiveness and excesses, since baroque was art for people who could afford it. Mainly the over-the-top frame and the floral patterns that aristocrats loved as wallpapers back then. They were a symbol of status. I admit the nymph could be better.
All this "explaining" seems unnecesary to me, but I hope the insight is useful for the voters.
Sorry for being an ass for a while. But still, nope.
PS: Andre, while your piece lacks execution, I value all the time you seem to have put on it, my vote goes for you this time.