Cool. The way you've illustrated the catapult tower works for your style, which uses forward highlights. My style does not. They are both "correct" depictions in the personal formats we use.
I had never studied this class in any particular detail until I drew CA-30 in 1942. After having spent a substantial amount of time doing my usual photo research, I've assembled a large collection of high res photos of each of the ships of this class, mainly pulled from the Naval History and Heritage Command website here: https://www.history.navy.mil/search.html
If you search for any of the hull numbers of these ships, you'll get tons of high-res (6000x5000 pixel TIFF) photos available for download. These are recent scans done at NARA of the BuShips photo collections, and are extremely detailed and useful for model builders and artists alike. Just from a cursory glance there are a few areas that should be looked at on your drawings... I will make a list below for your drawing of CA-30 in 1935 only; correcting the rest is up to you. In a few I'll post links to imgur albums for all the ships' photos I've assembled, to save you some effort of digging through the NHHC website and downloading/converting to JPG.
First, here's a link to most of the HOUSTON materials I've assembled: http://imgur.com/a/eZcrn
(Dates and approximate locations are taken from the captions on the NHHC website.)
1. The small platform just below the foremast spotting top is incorrect - there was not a bulwark on the aft side, and the forward side (likely a battle lookout or service platform for the concentration dial below) was fully enclosed with an outwardly curving wind deflector above. This is visible in the 2nd photo in the album (80-G-455964), which shows CA-30 in the Gatun Locks in 1934.
2. The machine gun platform on the foremast did not have a splinter shield bulwark until the late 1930s. This is evident in the first and second photos in the album (1935 and 1934 respectively). The ship's whistle and siren assembly is mounted between the round machine gun platforms and will be visible if the platform is only protected by pipe railing.
3. The forward yardarms do not extend aft at all - the way your halyards have been drawn seems to suggest so. They extended directly port & starboard with no angle aft. Also - the yards had a series of blinker lights attached to the top that should be visible in your drawing.
4. The fore and main tops are probably too thick and should be represented by uniform-width black-grey-black pixels.
5. The venturi shields (wind deflectors/baffles) on the pilot house level do not have supports that project downwards and should just be shown with standard shading below them to account for their shape. This was a standard USN wind deflector design visible on most of the pre-war ships and I have correctly drawn it on my depictions of the PORTER, SOMERS, and NORTHAMPTON classes. The 2nd photo in the album (CA-30 in the Gatun Locks) shows the area very well. Some photos with the sun directly overhead will show the shadows of the internal supports making it look like there are steel reinforcement tabs extending downward but there are not.
6. Your brass ship's bell is very bright!
7. The side lights on the bridge wings don't look right to me - they should be square, with two levels shown (see the Mare Island closeups of CA-29 for this).
8. I don't think it's worthwhile to show awnings erected over the ship's decks but that is a personal choice.
9. Your style uses highlights on surfaces, but not consistently - for instance, surely the turret tops (with their prominent P&S curves) should be highlighted on top?
10. The small derrick shown abeam the no.2 turret is actually a paravane boom.
11. I'm not sure why you've redrawn the catapult entirely - it was the exact same model used on every other USN cruiser of the time (the P-type Mark 6) which I have drawn from official BuShips plans, to scale.
12. The vent trunking and structures in the well deck near the hangars are dark grey (I'm not sure why) - they are normal structures and should be shown as such.
I really hesitated to make this post, but if these drawings are being touted as "the closest renditions to how the ships looked", then the details need to be correct.
I hope you take this post in the spirit it was meant - as a way of making these drawings accurate and not a personal attack.
Other ships photos:
CA-26 NORTHAMPTON: http://imgur.com/a/caAVQ
CA-27 CHESTER: http://imgur.com/a/LmBku
(mostly wartime photos)
CA-28 LOUISVILLE: http://imgur.com/a/pylSj
CA-29 CHICAGO: http://imgur.com/a/bKeH2
CA-30 HOUSTON: http://imgur.com/a/eZcrn
CA-31 AUGUSTA: http://imgur.com/a/eCrsO