[Friendly discussion mode]
I still can't agree with your view that a critic have to post his pictures to show his abilities before he can critique, because that's not relevant. Imo whether a critic is 'honorable' or not, should base on whether his critiques point out any flaws/strong points of the pic, or whether he provide suggestions for improvements(which you might or might not agree as arts can be subjective), not by whether himself got any nice pic to show.
To better explain my point, consider such critiques:
1) Wow very cute! Nice pic!
2) Very good shot! What lens you used?
3) This pic sucks. With such a good camera you should be able to do better.
4) The colour balance seems off. A bit warmer will be nice.
5) The pose seems a little stiff.
6) Good composition, made your subject stand out nicely.
Look at them and you seriously think you need to looks at the critics' own pics to know which group of critiques is of better value to you? Which is good or bad critiques?
And what if critics for 1) 2) 3) did take very good pictures, while 4) 5) 6) never even post a pic?
Even for a beginner, if most critiques say 'the pose is stiff', but no one explain how to make
a model relax, or post his own pic of a model with relaxed pose, he should be able to look up books or guides on people photography or glamour shots. That's already providing a direction for improvement. It would be good if they do, but a critique simply might not be able to tell you everything you need to know.
Useful critiques can be polite, can be harsh, that could be the critics' style(I prefer polite of course

). Some sweet complimenting critique can be of less use, if they don't provide much in terms of improvement. But one thing is for sure, useful critiques do not necessarily need to come from critics who post their own good pics.