Sorry to disappoint Clive, but I've got no constructive comments on these fantastic images. You've done some good research on stellar profiles and how to manage them
...and it shows. The use of the line tool in such a manner is simply the beginning to diagnosing image quality and problems. Drag it across the image to check for gradients that arent easily detectable. The area tool is great to determine colour shifts in backgrounds so you can neutralise sky colours as required. Learning the tools and when to use them is the key.
As for whether you've hit the mark for a comp. Hmmm not sure. Mike is right. You need to pull off something rather special, unique and push the boundaries. The pixelinterferometer is broken, besides what would I know anyway?
Martin summarised it perfectly in his recent APOD post;
"Those guys at APOD do choose in some strange ways....for example, I regard my best image to date as the 5 panel mosaic of Corona Australis ....which took 3 months to image, is around 40 hours exposure, and something like 180 individual frames.....APOD not interested. Shoot a 90 second RGB of an eclipsed moon, take 5 minute to process it...send it in along with millions of others who must have photographed it, and you get an APOD?!"
The same can be said for astro comps...do the judges truly recognise the effort one has gone to in producing such a spectacular image? Rarely. Its the finished product that is judged, not the journey or "saga" in getting there. Sure its great to get some recognition (Malin, APOD, whatever) as it can be quite a motivation to get out there and work harder towards perfection, but don't lose focus in that the only person you are trying to impress is yourself. If you're constantly suprising yourself with your imaging output, you're on the right path. Each image should invoke new developments and thoughts on how to do things better.
Look forward to seeing more. An FLI vs QHY shootout could be on the cards. After all, its not what you have, its how you use it.