It's generally a better idea to look at the real thing to get a feel for how it looks. If you only look at how other people did it, you'll just end up copying their interpretations of lava, and potentially copying their mistakes.
Since you have pouring lava, you should probably be looking at lava falls. Something to keep in mind is that since lava usually is usually not as liquid as water and doesn't have a uniform consistency (it's more like salsa than water, even when very "fluid"), you'll pretty much never get a lava flow that's so perfect like what you've drawn. It'll have some chunks in the flow, some parts will move slower than others, etc.
This is probably the closest ref I've found to what you seem to be going for. Notice how because all the lava is so hot (if it wasn't, it wouldn't flow so evenly or quickly), it's almost uniformly yellow-orange, there's not much noise in it. Also, even at these high temperatures, it's still got some chunkiness, the flows aren't perfectly straight, they have wider and narrower spots where the lava flows over itself.
This is slightly cooler lava, notice how much rougher the flow is - this is because it's much thicker and more turbulent, as different parts flow at different rates and continuously slow down as they cool.
Pay attention to how in both ref photos, the hot (ligher) and cool (darker) bits give a very clear indication of the structure of the lava flow. You can see where it piles up, where it's thicker, where it's thinner, where there are flows of slightly cooler lava next to slightly hotter lava. This is what's missing from your rendition of it. You've tried to add too much "detail". In addition, because it's so thick, lava tends to form much larger chunks and flows than what you've drawn. Your lava flow is narrower than the bear but contains something like 4-5 neighbouring "channels", when it'd probably be 1-2.