Several comments:
Startrails usually form the backdrop to something in the foreground and the mid-ground, and in the really good star-trails images, you can see the star background contrast with or complement whatever the photographer chose to place in the midground/foreground. In this case, your choice of foreground (scrub, small bare tree) is not particularly interesting. The bright shoreline in midground tends to diminish the brightness of the star trails you've recorded. As I've noted to you in the last post, you do need to find a dark sky location, and you do need to think in terms of the overall image (foreground, mid-ground, back-ground) to make a really attractive image.
With a wide-angle lens, any orientation of the camera above the horizon, will cause perspective distortion of vertical elements, as it does with the trees visible in the image. These slanting verticals (which we instinctively know should be straight up-and-down), will lessen the impact of the image. So especially with wide-angle lenses, you need to be very careful about how you aim the lens, because of this distortion. In practical terms, to avoid these slanting elements, you either aim directly at the horizon (and waste a lot of image area below the horizon, if you're shooting star trails), or you avoid including obvious vertical elements in your composition.
Your exposure shows gaps between the individual star trails that you merged into one image. The gaps are quite small, but they are visible. So there was a small interval between successive exposures. It's pretty clear to me that you were NOT using long-exposure noise reduction (which would take a dark frame the same duration as the exposure), so there was something else in the workflow that introduced that delay. If the delay was caused by the camera taking the time to write the image to the memory card, then perhaps using a faster memory card would be the solution. The other approach is to shoot higher up (ie, closer to the celestial pole) where the apparent motion is less, and the gaps would be less visible.
On the plus side, you do have the technique worked out quite well, and your merging of images looks very smooth. I'm a little mystified how you were able to get apparent waves on the water, with such a long exposure, unless you only used a few frames of the foreground in compositing the image.
