1) The prime evil in my mind is this rule:

[...]
Don't double-post.
[...]

I certainly consider myself serious, but I am also serious about a computer vision project right now, and some other design projects.
And I need some time to let things settle a bit and look at what my image looks like several times to find things that are wrong with it, at least unless someone else points out the flaws.
And by that time the thread may have dropped.
So, if I have an update, then according to the forum rules I am free to edit the post with a zillion updates, but no one will ever see it.
Wouldn't it be better to allow returning to a piece some time later by double-posting if there is an update?
Or, to avoid a one-person-thread, to allow to delete the posts with the updates that expired without response? Maybe it was just me, but I couldn't find a delete option.

2) Thanking system will add clicks that waste time in my opinion.

3)

[...]

(I mean, the thread with all those awesome crits that have been ignored)
About the examples taking too much time: is it really necessary to prove that your version is better, or is it enough to just clarify some principle that you think could improve the image in question?

4)

Trying to reuse a classic pose for a dragon.
Not exactly the same pose as in references, though, I might have messed it up.
[...]

Guess what, that yielded some response, but 0 about the pose or composition.
(well, it did yield something useful, which was an obvious need for preemptive clarification about my intentions with the image)

I like the scene and the perspective, but the trees, especially the fir trees, make me dizzy. That is because they don't seem to be in the same perspective. Maybe I'll illustrate it with a little drawing, but I am busy elsewhere right now, I hope you are not in a hurry.

Perhaps i will try and do some furry animal, to really force myself.

That task might be intimidating, considering http://wayofthepixel.net/index.php?topic=8925.0, though I have thought of trying it myself some day. Wondering if it would be polite to resurrect that old thread in that case.

I am still learning to draw, but challenging tasks like this make me think of diffuse highlight planes and specular highlight planes to simplify things for myself (and to exercise imagining those planes while shading). Like if some plane in the drawing is not parallel to the specular highlight plane, then I try not to draw a specular highlight there. Sometimes I even hold my palm near the picture for reference. There are more competent people here, though, maybe that method is suboptimal, but, for example, if the light source is from left and above, I doubt there would be reflection on the mid-body like your picture seems to have. The reflection curve continuing there looks nice, though.

Quote

it seems to me it comes from not noticing how the location of highlights depends on the angle of the individual hairs, not on the angle of the general shape

This is confusing to me.  Did you mean to say the opposite?
[...]
First you have to take into account the shape of what the hair is resting on, in this case the spherical shape of the head. 
[...]
The second has longer hair, and as the hair rests on the shoulder it is directly under the light source.  It starts to reveal clumps and strands as it reflects light.
[...]

In the context of your picture, what I was trying to say is: if the general shape of the hair was made from some other material that is homogeneous, say, plastic, or dough, the highlight would not have the same shape as, say, the second hair in your picture.

Short version: Highlights follow the shape of the three dimensional form.

In this case, assuming the light source is not behind the head, the highlight would be round, not crescent-shaped. I think this kind of highlights as we see on hair must come from the direction of the hairs.

I have always wondered at how people shade fur according to the general form, but not according to the direction of the individual hairs, which should especially apply to reflected light.
My own sketchy first attempt (in my life) at shading fur would be as follows, in the green box:

Also, assuming light from above, the chest should be in shadow, shouldn't it?

Fire animation patterns? There was a time when I looked at some fire videos.
My best guess is the flow in fire is an upwards spiral. And the bigger upwards spiral is itself a smaller spiral flowing upwards near the center and downwards at the edges.
And my best guess for why it is a spiral is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli's_principle.
That's why flames sometimes appear to go downwards at the edge.

The big spiral might not be visible if the flame is small enough, though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5lJ3GXP190

I did attempt to animate fire and smoke like that once, but gave up, because it became too complicated and wasn't worth it.
If I had had some aerodynamics software, though... whatever.
I could just say something sarcastic, like: if you want to understand the swirling of the flames, look for the spirals upon spirals.
But seriously, I hope you can come up with a simplification.