I have a question, more than a criticism:
Isn't it a bit problematic when the sky in the upper left corner is more interesting to look at than the landscape below, which seems to be kind of where our eye is meant to be leading? I mean, this kind of composition reminds me of the typical picture where a person has climbed a mountain and is looking down at the sprawling landscape before him / her, usually with some sort of building or settlement or special feature in the landscape as the focal point. So the eye is drawn to the character, who is looking at that feature in the landscape, and our eye follows his / her gaze to the horizon.
In this picture, there's a character who appears to be looking at just... a blanket of clouds. And then our eye is rather drawn to the stars at the very top of the image, instead of the clouds.
Wouldn't it be more natural to place an object of interest, towering over the clouds or flying through the clouds? Or, if that shiniest star is supposed to be an important feature, move the entire canvas higher, so we see less of the foreground and more of the sky above?
Again, I don't know much about this sort of stuff and how to draw good scenes that guide the eyes naturally through different points of interest, so this is very much an open question, rather than a criticism.
EDIT: Actually, Drazelic did make the clouds more interesting to look at, because they're so dramatic that they appear like crashing ocean waves. Whereas in ||||'s version, it's a rather featureless carpet of lumps. So I guess that's why Drazelic made the change.