I'll agree with Scott... I also like #5, it's the best of the bunch and the computer tweaks didn't go over the edge like they could have. Photographs should tell a story or give reason for some emotion - if they don't they become simply snapshots.
I've seen several pictures (forum-wide) that didn't meet that criteria and often wonder if knowing the motivation behind the shot would make a it more pleasing. If there was a particular effect one's trying to achieve it would be helpful to say "I'm working on....., tell me if I did it or how to improve." If there's a story that only the photographer would be privy to then a few well chosen words or title might fill in that gap for the uninformed.
With that said, I did not understand the "story", motivation, technique for pictures 1 through 4 - but that's just my opinion and worth exactly what you paid for it. On the other hand, I see some areas that could be addressed for future pictures from a more technical point of view - or at least what I'd consider doing.
Shot 1 seems slightly tilted with the right side higher. This might be the actual topography or magnified by the large burned-in street light. It could be the tripod was on a sloped surface with no more tilt adjustment left on the head - shortening one leg would put the "horizon" on a level plane. I also strive to put the horizon line on the "thirds" of the picture whenever possible and avoid bisecting the frame.
Shot 2 had a wildly overexposed street lamp that dominated and resulted in a green flare spot. A suggestion would be to use the subject in an eclipse fashion in front of the streetlight - that might eliminate the flare spot as well. Note again the tilted horizon line - possible magnified by the tilted subject as well.
Shot 3 appears overexposed all around - a little computer tweaking to balance out the lower left hot-spot would have been nice. Moons are very difficult to include in pictures - they often appear much smaller in print than to the naked eye, they tend to burn into a white blur in order to properly expose the foreground, they tend to be a distraction unless they're the focal point of the picture.
Shot 4 also has a hot-spot in the lower left corner but the real distraction for me was the tilted building. While the tree might be the focus of the shot, the building in the background catches your eye. For a good example, look at photo 5 and you'll see the building and horizon lines are level/plumb and makes for a better overall shot. I took the liberty of rotating this shot and some tweaking to cool it down - those low pressure sodium lights really mess up color rendition.
Night photography and bulb settings are a hoot to play around with. It's even more fun with the digital aspect and not wasting film. I remember my first digital camera (whopping 2 mega pix) and how my shooting techniques got lazy. My composition mistakes were easily corrected by cropping - same with exposure... I spent more time fixing the pictures on the computer than I should have had I just paid attention to basics (composition, viewfinder awareness, bracketing, etc.)
I consider this a motorcycle forum first - with a photography sub-forum. I'm no expert at either but learned a lot about both from people who shared the good and bad aspects with me. Hope you don't mind me sharing.