All of the example pieces in Mike Johnston's humor piece are highly-regarded and successful photographs by some of the most accomplished photographers in history.
But the humor is more than just "Haha! Those commenters didn't know that they were looking at something famous!" After all, that just comes down to the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Granted, that alone is kind of funny, but the actual point is that the "critics" each fail to actually look at the photograph and what the artist is attempting to say. Instead, they focus on rules and technical issues, often getting obsessed with some particular pet concern. On one level, that's funny because the photographers probably know much more about those things than the (fictional) commenters do. More importantly, the comments miss the point that not only are the rules really only guidelines, but that they're guidelines in the service of something, not as goals on their own.
So, for critique: take seriously people who are interested in what you're trying to say. You can take their suggestions under advisement — particularly if you're asking for them — but remember that you should be your own artistic compass.
I'm reminded of a great scene from the movie Amadeus, where the tone-deaf but music-loving Emperor provides his "critique" of Mozart's new opera, saying "Too many notes". And, I found a good article analyzing this scene as a lesson in critique which I recommend as relevant to photo-critique.
As an aside, there's a "part two" to Mike's article, and the "advice" given to Cartier-Bresson has a strong resemblance to what I say in my comments to Stack Exchange user Akram Mellice here. In my defense, though, Akram did ask for suggestions, and I don't start my answer with "In response to your request for a critique (which I assume you wanted because I have found your photo uploaded on the internet)...".