A critique on the critiques: Richard picked his spots and made excellent use of linear perspective in bright sunlight to give us the lines and shadows of his title. In the first two we get interesting contrasts, the hand of man, arrays of good midtones. Some of that technical excellence breaks down in the third. But what do we get in exchange? What I get is a feeling I can't describe in words: a little bit of ominous, a question about this not terribly secure walkway that leads to a darkened structure next to a bright spot (caused by a lens flare), a limpid moon hanging low over a distant mountain range.
There's a feeling in #3 that simply isn't there in #1 or #2. We constantly critique in terms of technique: crop here or there to implement the rule of thirds, bring up the tones in this part of the picture, or bring the tones down over there, reduce the noise over here, sharpen a bit more over there. But the bottom line is whether or not a picture grabs you in the gut. Look through them again. Which one grabs you, not as a fine demonstration of photo technique but as meaningful art? I don't mean to overstate the case. It's a matter of degree. But to me, it's the undefinable impact of a picture that matters. The technical side almost always is a nitpick.