To be brutally honest about critiquing the critiques, you are taking a very limited, emotional approach to whether the shot says anything to you. "Professional" critiquing involves the technical side: You did not notice mention of over or under-exposure, camera angle, depth of field etc. and the one suggestion about wide angle would have flattened the shot in a negative way. Only one comment about editing and that was very vague. No suggestions about how to improve any of the images in post. A more thorough critique of the technical side is warranted on some shots.
Composition needs to be evaluated in a more specific way including the visual effect (positive or negative) of shape, colour, texture, lighting etc. or the position of the picture elements and whether a better placement was possible. You did not use the term: centre of interest, either, and the fact that at least one image did not have one and that the centre of interest must have some level of visual impact for the viewer. A clichee shot for example is often one with a boring centre of interest that requires a more original approach from the photographer.
These are just a very few pointers. There are many more.
You provided a few comments but definitely not a critique.
skieur