With or without?

My personal opinion is never a person. I just want nature to speak for itself, and BE the focus of my images. That's my own personal feelings, so my answer is obvious LOL

I think it depends on what you're going for. If you're trying to shoot a full on to a T "landscape", then yes, never (or rarely... because never say never?) a human. BUT this very same shot could fall into "adventure photography" or any number of other genres where obviously a human(s) would be necessary. I guess it comes down to what you're trying to do. And as always, this is just my two cents.

I agree with Mike. In this case, I think the image would look unbalanced without the figure because there's so much "going on" in the top third, while the rest is very restrained in tone and contrast, so the foreground could look lacking by comparison.

There are nice textures in the grass, so the foreground could work without the figure if the sky were not so dramatic, giving a totally different tranquil mood.

Good to travel with your wife, so you have the choice of a free model whenever you like! And have the choice of images depending where you hope to publish.

As with any elements in an image I feel the addition of a person can either add to the composition or detract.
In this case I feel this adds the composition, helping to anchor the eye and provide the sense of scale.
The red jacket certainly helps (might be overlooked without), I wonder if the balance would be better had she been on the right side of the frame.

For this particular image you actually need something in the foreground, that may as well be a human figure. However, the person you added doesn't actually do what it is supposed to do - to connect the foreground to the rest of the image, because that person itself is too far back and now has the connection issue as well. If that same person were standing near the right edge of the picture looking into the distance, slightly turned left that would be a different matter.