I always cringe slightly when I hear people say things like you had to dehaze the image. I personally love haze in my images, especially in landscapes as it can add some really great atmosphere to a shot. And the dehaze tool is very very often abused as pushing it too hard (which isnt that much at all) can create some artifacts and make images look pretty artificial. And I think I see some here. Look at the hill on the left hand side. As you follow it up to the sky, it gets bright and brighter, then suddenly its very dark, then the light itself isnt quite as bright as it should be. Might not be just from dehaze, but it has an artificial look there.

Its unfortunate that there is contstruction going on because my main critique of the composition is that I think it needs more land at the bottom. There are objects cut off at the bottom (like the tree on the left) and it just feels like it needs more context. Also the horizon line is smack in the middle of the frame. Which is one of those things that in landscapes always feels like no real attention was paid to the composition. It signals to me that the ground and sky have equal weight in the frame and also should balance each other somehow. I dont think thats the case here.

So, given all that... I would likely go back and reduce the dehaze. Maybe drop the exposure of the foreground a bit, and bring the exposure up in the sky. Then do some dodging and burning (with some splashes of color if you want) to enhance the light thats falling on the land and bring out the contrast a bit. Maybe paint in some soft glow in the sky.

For the crop, I would say crop off about a third of the sky, maybe a bit above that line of clouds. Giving the image a wider aspect ratio.

Of course, thats just what I would personall do if this was my image.

^{This comment was posted by a bot, if you have questions or concerns, ask them on r/TripleSnakeAnal}