Bitter shares a lot of awesome stuff, offering lots of neat ideas, and this one's a pretty cool, too... but yeah... that moon hanging there just feels awkward. Given the texture of the structures in the picture, the moon looks out of place.
It is awkward, isn't it. But, it was there!

What do you think if I took the detail down in the bridge? Would it make the moon pop a bit more, or still feel awkward?
I will say again, I share images here as a way of showing my point of view, and to back up my comments on others' images.Some people here like to sound like experts, but never show their work...you just have to take their word for it, I guess.
I wish I could rally people to get this site to create a critique only forum, for everyone. I believe it is what
most people come here for, innit? Post anywhere else on the forum, and you get very few comments. I've been told to post in the Gallery section. Ok, I have. Beginners also post there, so what's the difference?
If you turn it any kind of way it looks ridiculous.
" Ok lets just throw the moon in there at the bottom of the photo with horrible composure. Dead center, like the moon passes this way 365 days a year."
No.
The detail is awesome, focus is perfect. The moon blows the entire shot. Dead center dynamics anyone?
Heavily edited??????????????
I thought you said you came here to learn about composition? I posted this to show how rules can be broken. If you don't see why it works, you have a ways to go.
Heavy editing? No, not really. I did have to merge two images for this shot. Because of the extreme dynamic range. This wasn't a DoF issue. Is it falsifying the truth? I don't believe so. The moon was there. Exactly where you see it in the image. There's also nothing wrong with "heavy" post processing, if it adds to the image. Applying random actions to try to make a bad image better? No.
Would you care to point out what you feel is a result of heavy processing?
Feel free to carry on your vendetta, IXLR8, it's quite amusing.