I don't usually comment on landscapes because I believe it's impossible for a photograph even to begin to come up to the standards set by some of history's great landscape painters. Photography does a number of things much better than paint can do them, but landscape isn't one of them.
But that said, I need to take issue with Pop's comments. Strange, because I usually agree with Pop. But I like this picture.
Yes, the light is flat, but it's a hazy day and the light is always flat on hazy days. The flatness of the light is part of why the picture is good. Yes, there's a lack of detail in the low values, but in a small image at 72ppi on a computer monitor there's always a lack of detail in properly exposed low values. I'd love to see the thing properly printed at a reasonable size.
I hate to talk in terms of formal composition rules, but it's true that rules often work. Seems to me that the dark trees in the upper right combine with the river and the bushes on the left bank to split the picture into two distinct triangles. The viewer's eye moves naturally from triangle to triangle. In addition, the dark upper cloud and the lower dark triangle focus the viewer on the distant mountains. I agree with Pop about the subtly shaded mountains, and I think they're the heart of the picture. The mid tones seem good, though I'd be reluctant to pass judgment on that in a small monitor image considering the subtleties of the tones.
All in all, I'd call it good work. Wish I could see a 17 x 22 print.