It's quite underexposed, and the lamplight is blown out.
Night images with either a full moon or an artificial light source contain a very wide dynamic range of exposures values and they are almost impossible to capture in a single image and end with a pleasing picture. Films and digital detectors are not able to cature the full dynamic range of exposures and the bright spots are typically blown out, and/or the shadows have no details. The best way to deal with situations like this are to take several images using different exposure values (f/ stops and or shutter speeds) and combine these images using layer stacking techniques.
Your image is severly blown out at the lamp and there is no details in the shadows among the leaves. In addition, to my old and somewhat feable eyes, the main elements were out of focus. These are all tehnical issues any one of which will get your image rejected by the moderator.
I do not agree about the focus, but i have thank you about the full explanetion and atention !
You are under and overexposed, as shown in the histogram:
This leads to that flat look of missing contrast. In addition, there is considerable noise.
However, I think it's well focussed as you can read without difficulties the ID of the lamppost, which will probably trigger an IP refusal.
Oh thanks for the analysis and the time dedicated to respond. Have a nice day!
La foto está demaciado subexpuesta, tiene mucho negro osea mucha oscuridad
Your frame is underexposed causing lost details. When you underexpose your framing you end up with a focus problem. It is difficult for the camera to focus in the dark. The evidence of this is in this shot. Zoom up to 200 and really examine the edges closely. Then ask yourself how easy would it be for someone to crop this image from it's background. If you're not sure, try cropping it out yourself. Setting aside the areas that got lost in the shadows, it would still be difficult cropping out some of the other areas. This is because the edges are soft.
The lamp too have soft edges.
@Bob McAlpine gives a very good explanation. I could not say it better. It worth the while taking note of every line of his comment.