The original didn't work because the more distant foot was sticking out further, making it look bigger than the near one, in defiance of perspective.  The new version looks more proportionally logical.  You could even shrink the far foot a bit more if you wanted to, but I don't think it's necessary.

I'm not sure if the far foot is too far along the curve of the body or not.  At that level of abstraction, it's hard to tell.

The other thing that jumps out at me is that it almost looks like you've done the same thing with the wings—that is, made the near one smaller.  The far wing occupies more vertical space along the bird's body than the near one, and it isn't enough shorter from armpit to wingtip to account for the part of it that should be hidden by the bird's body.  Try shrinking it by 2-3px in both dimensions, or make the near wing bigger a bit.

Oh, wow, yes, that's a lot better.  bengo's advice was spot-on, and in addition to drawing attention to all the right things, the palette changes make the small wagons in the middle distance read much more clearly.

The pecs still look to me like they're bulging out a bit much to the side, but everything else (horns, left arm, shading, etc.) is much improved.

You did a pretty good job of reproducing your reference, but the reference itself is . . . problematic, and you've exaggerated some of its bad points.

There's no easy way to say this, but you exaggerated the pectoral muscles too much, to the point where they no longer entirely look like muscle.  You might have a cow here rather than a bull.   It's the combination of the way they stick out to the sides and how the highlights work.  (Your reference is almost but not quite as bad.)

Horns should curve in the same direction—right now, it looks like one of them is glued on backwards.  Both tips should point up unless you have a really good reason for doing otherwise.  Check photos of real bulls.  Again, this is an error carried through from your reference.

The arms seem to be different sizes, and I think the left one (the one straightish at his side) may be too short.  Stand up and hold your own arm in a similar position and see where the hand falls in relation to your waist and thigh.  (Your reference has the arm further out to the side than you do, which might account for the discrepancy.)  The way you've handled the shadow on the left arm isn't right either—you've got this highlight on the underside that doesn't really make sense, and you're shadowing the creases between the muscles more darkly than the bits that actually have shadow cast across them.  The other arm is better in terms of shading—it's dark, but it isn't as confusing.

Reproducing the teeth was maybe not such a good choice—they're relatively larger here than in the original, and stand out a lot more than they should.  The result is kind of bucktoothed/beaverish.

Left hoof looks a bit stubby/truncated.

I'll assume the apparently four-fingered hand was intentional (no real reason a minotaur should have five fingers).

Again, you did do a pretty good job of reproducing your reference—the 3D model shown in it is just weird.  And I maybe emphasise realism a bit too much sometimes.

That one purple in the shadows is maybe a little more vivid than I would have chosen (feels too red, especially, given that the next-lighter colour in the ramp is a blue-grey), but then I suck at choosing hue/saturation for those kinds of applications.  One of the reasons I'll never be more than mediocre at art.  The wisent and cart have improved overall, in my not-so-humble opinion.

I think eishiya's right about the sky being too regular.  Again, back to your reference:  the clouds in the photo come in wide and narrow strips, and some of the strips curve and branch.  They show varying amounts and intensities of sky between them.  You have mostly-straight cloud strips of about the same width and with about the same gap between them, all radiating from a common center without any branching or much curving (leftmost version shows a little curve, but has the same problems of uniformity otherwise).