While these kinds of diagrams tend to have all kinds of notations as I see I will not be saying this one is wrong or right. I do however think there are some points that could be changed:
The small people you draw in a use case diagram are actors, which means that any user defined for the system will be included in this use case diagram (should they have a use case). In this particular system it would seem like you have called one of the actors: "Actor" which seems slightly off. Ask yourself, who is "Actor"? Is it a random person? A customer? Perhaps it should have that name?
As for the extend part: extend refers to a use case extending another use case. In this diagram it would seem like one of the actors is actually a use case?
Another note is the database package which you include in the use case diagram. This is something that defines the implementation and has no place in this diagram.
A possible but very incomplete (leaving you some work) use case diagram could look like: