There are several things to think about here. The viewpoint is not flattering to the image in looking down upon the birds.
The shadow of the structure with its straight lines detracts from the image.
The bird with the nice reflection has that reflection cut by the straight line shadow and the highlights on top of that bird get lost in the highlights of the reflection.
The fern coming in on the right side is a distraction.
The image has visible noise all over and halos around the birds - both probably exaggerated by sharpening in postwork.

You should also take into account that it doesn't always apply to ultrawide lenses.

Overexposed doesn't mean blown highlights.
Just the same as underexposed doesn't mean jet black.
Whenever this subject comes up, people try to build that stupid strawman, and its just a dumb argument that shows their lack of understanding.

They are not camera optical quality and have massive ugly colour casts, but people have used them.

DJ, I wouldn't argue if I were you. He is trying to help you improve, to see.
I sometimes use the snipping tool to double check levels. Here is an example showing how out of level this image is.
Compare the horizon in this snip with the bottom edge of the image.

DJ, something to think about.
What is your subject? What did you really want to show?
What isn't your subject? Does it add to the image?
If it doesn't add to your image, why is it in the frame?

I think Sandra said it best, Neil, you do not want to aim to capture this expression or this angle generally.
It looks like a shot taken at the wrong time, the dog is moving its head towards you and has blinked, you are not engaged with the subject.
The eyes ARE in the depth of focus, as is probably the nose so generally focus is not a problem.
Some people have trouble discerning OOF with movement blur. It can be hard to pick the boundary between the two at times.
Dog shots/portraits work so much better 90% of the time when you get down to their level.
The talk about "correct settings" is a little constricted. Correct settings is a range, not a definite point. The talk about correct settings operates on the assumption that the image has to be taken fast enough to freeze all action, ..... that is not necessarily true, and neither the dog has to be fully in the DOF. There are ways of taking good shots that do not comply with this.
Yes it is a take again shot, a learning shot.
Get lower, and aim for interaction, engagement. It doesn't have to be with you, but should be with something.

How does a lack of transparency and what appear to be double standards by the "elite" put the members of the groups' minds at ease?

How can we know what sacred cows have been transgressed if it is all hush hush when someone gets banned or suspended? Especially after the masses that seem to be taking offence now, were very defensive and so so protective of Mr B in a past life for what appeared to be so much worse trangressions than he appears to have exhibited here?

Has Billyspad been banned or suspended from FYC has he? Was it as a result of this thread? Or was it other stuff?

This is a masterpiece Graham.
A pure masterpiece.
It almost made me blush.
Hey Jim, make room on that confessional pew mate.

R.I.P. MDorn.
He will be missed, here and in Portland as well no doubt.
I liked MDorn a lot.

The pixelation as mentioned by Nightski is very very evident - as acknowledged and explained by the OP as well. And as acknowledged by others in this thread.
It is evident on the top edge of the curve and on the bottom edge of the curve, as are the uneven smudges produced by the OP along the main portions of the curve in trying to minimise them.
The disparaging remarks about her equipment, and the blowhard remarks detailing your new monitor are totally unnecessary as well as being incorrect.
Especially given the fact that even with your new large monitor you still cannot see very evident processing inadequacies.
Please refrain from these sort of remarks in this forum in the future Donald.

No.
I want you to do what you are comfortable with, and gives you the results that you want.
But in helping you make that decision, I wanted you to be aware of what can be done.
And what I did here, I did with a JPG very simply in about three minutes.
There is much more option available with processing raw captures.

And just to play devils advocate ....... many times we intentionally get the White Balance "wrong".
We want it to not correct to the conditions.

So its not about "getting it right".
It is about getting the result with it that we want to get.

If we white balanced sunsets and sunrises correctly we would be taking all the warmth out of the shot.
The same with blue hour shots except the otherway around.

WE would diminish many of the reasons that we shoot during the "golden hour".