Hi Trevor
The issue you have raised is a difficult and even kinda sensitive one really but hey I'll have a shot....
If someone posts an image of one of the most imaged, studied and viewed objects in the sky (Eta, M42, Running Chicken etc) for which there are literally 1000's of examples to compare to on the net and countless tutorials and forum responses etc to sift through that could provide help, and if your post has a scientific type informative description of this well known object and the physical processes going on etc ie it is an astro object specific informative post, rather than a "so, what do you think of what I have done here" post, few are likely to really want to be listing all of the things they think are wrong with it, from a processing/presentation view point, does that make sense?
I suggest when you post an image for aesthetic/processing feedback, especially of the obvious well known culprits, probably don't bother with the description of what it is and what it represents etc (we all know), rather, try asking more specific processing questions, say, you may have had trouble with one or two aspects of the image processing, maybe the star colour, or noise etc and ask for specific ideas on different approaches people might have that you could try. An open expectation for a full critique is unlikely to be rewarded.
Hope that all made sense
Mike