Watermarks are more suitable when placed over the main subject of the image (in this case the wolf) or the most valuable part of an image that is most likely to be taken (in my opinion this section would be the face, since it is very well done) and then made transparent.
I hope I don't sound condescending by explaining this but I will just in case you don't actually know how; to make something transparent in Photoshop, you must create another layer, use the Type tool to type the watermarking text over the subject or most valuable part of the image, and then use the opacity slider to down the opacity to where the watermark is still visible (it drives me crazy when I find a really good image, but the watermark is completely illegible but still directly blocking the view of something, so not only is the image ruined by a blob on the page [text is fine but just blobs, pleh], but you can't actually see the rest of the artist's work because you can't read it) but it doesn't completely block the view of the image itself.
For example; http://www.furaffinity.net/view/5226774/
I also suggest you refine the watermark itself. Like mine in the example linked to above, I provided a signature as well as text, but not -just- a second signature. I provided the year (that's always helpful in case a person can see "oh 2006, that was a while ago, they must have improved a lot by now! I wonder how good their art is today") as well as information regarding the image in it's first appearance on the internet in case some asshat decided to re-post it with deleting the text in Paint. Should it escalate (say the person is thieving your artwork, claiming it his and selling it) to a court case, the original internet posting will have the clear definitions of what it should and shouldn't be used as, in a simple, to-the-point sentence or two.
I only provided my alias initials, because if I believed if you google "ZSW", only I will come up. It's some weird german company though. But the example was old and I'm using "Zonadow" now, for my watermarked images. It always helps posting a link.


Now, for critique on the artwork itself; I love the pose, proportions, snow, etc. basically everything about this except for two things.
1. The fuzzy lumpish looking thing behind the neck fur. I sound a little crude but I honestly have no idea what it is.
2. The hind leg closest to the ground. I'm sorry but it kind of looks like a stick.

Thank you for the advice, I will definitely look into that more.

And, this picture was mainly meant for doodles but turned out to be one of my favorites although I did not spend as much time on it.

Again, thank you for the crit and the watermarking "lecture" and I will definitely take that advice.

Yay! You totally didn't rip me a new one.
Usually when I try critiquing people or give advice they refer to how "horrible" my work is and how I'm a "troll with no life" and etc etc
So thanks for not being an asshole to me =3