Two gripes (my personal preference, not gospel), both fixable in photoshop: 1) composition & aspect ratio, and 2) post-processing.
Compositionally, the scene halves the frame more-or-less horizontally; there's nothing really happening on intersecting thirds/no patterns/no real focal point except the center of the frame. A good rule of thumb in landscape photography is to have the horizon 1/3 from the top or bottom of the frame and have the point of interest off to the side, or above, or below...generally anywhere but the center. If you crop the image with a 3:2 (standard print size) or an even more elongated frame, the composition can be vastly improved.
In terms of PP, the foreground is waaay too dark and contrasty overall, with blow outs and a lot of lost detail (the bench in particular, which is basically black + white). Curves adjustment will work to a point, but with a scene like this which has high global contrast you really need a carefully processed HDR to balance the sky with the terrain, being careful not to over saturate certain colours/channels. The image does look very heavily post-processed with over saturated greens, contrast etc, but you simply will not see this if you don't have an IPS monitor...and what's more, some people like this look.
I butchered your image just to see what you think about my suggested changes - cropped, reduced contrast (curves), reduced saturation, and warmed the scene up a little by reducing the blue channel and very slightly pushing the red. The compromise is the loss of that nice sky, but if the sky is the focal point of your picture, the foreground should not ooccupy more than 1/3 of the frame.
|IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!|
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'