What camera, what lens, and what their settings were are irrelevancies as regards critique of this --or almost any-- image. What is relevant in an image like this is content, composition, and ultimately, meaning; each of which will inevitably be more or less subjective.

Often, images --especially those shot in or converted to b&w-- should pass the (your) 'squint test.' By that, I mean literally squint you eyes such that detail is no longer a criteria, and you can instead 'judge' the balance of light and dark, the symmetry or asymmetry of the elements, and whether or not the whole justifies the means. Having passed that, then compositional forms/norms come into play, and by that I do not mean the so-called 'standards' of "Rule of Thirds" or "Golden Mean" or any of the dozens of other 'rules' that do actually help, but are not by themselves what does or does not make a good image. By this, I mean to state that whatever the particular elements in the image are, they should stand in some meaningful relationship with each other, in conjunction with the ranges of lights and mids and darks, at least as regarded by you.

Do you want a complete breakdown as I see it? Probably not. Especially since you probably see the relationships of elements somewhat differently than I might. What I do see, though, is a more than competent image.