This is a worthy try and a very difficult subject matter.
There are a few things that struck me about this though that O do feel could be improved upon.
Your horizon line where the ocean meets the sky is completely distorted due to barrel distortion, this is easily remedied inside the lens correct filter in photoshop or using transform in Lightroom.
The rocks. Areas are severely overexposed and guessing that you shot this in RAW (which I hope you did as you should be) this can be recovered in post work usually through your RAW converting with blending 2 images or layer masking inside photoshop. Also, parts of the rocks are very soft, areas almost look motion blurred a tad...kind of odd looking.
So we have an image that has 2 essential things that need correcting...maybe even consider brightening the sky a tad, but not much and darkening the foreground some.
I think if you take the time and do this, you would have a shot that really pops. It is a good try but it is something I would consider to be a 'base' to start with, it just needs further work.
I would really dispute the comment that the rocks are "severely over exposed". I think they are a bit too brightly lit for the scene, however that is not a severe problem, more of a minor one. Its also something that can be corrected in post, RAW or not. Compositionally, the shot is good, however the lighting of the rocks does overpower the night sky a bit. Again, that can be corrected in post, so the shot itself is not bad.
I think its deserving of a better rating than 2.5 for sure...technique could use some work, but the shot does have impact.
Thank you for your suggestions and comments, they are highly appreciated. This was taken on a beach where behind me was a promenade with a lot of shops, restaurants and cars that where moving around. No matter the exposure there were problems with the light on the foreground. I admit that the post processing work is a bit sloppy (the horizon issue) and needs more work -things that I will attend to immediately. I still keep a couple of versions and I will post an updated version soon. Please feel free to comment on that as well. You can also check other astro shots in my gallery.
I think the foreground isn't interesting enough for a truly exciting image, making this only a learning experience. Future images would tell what was learned - there is a lot to be learned from the critique, which I accept except for brightening the sky - IMHO they are the only good in this image. the overexposed foreground could have been treated when shooting by using an ND grad filter, with the dark side at the bottom!
Such an image should have a meaningful and supporting foreground, not clashing such as here.
Good try - leaves room for improvement...
I agree though if she had used a Grad ND I am not real sure how that would effect things with such a long exposure.....most seem to forego using them with such long exposures, I have never attempted it myself with one, just go lens only
For years I have been trying to understand why I want to do in camera what could be done in PS with equal or better results - I guess that for me photography is still about capturing the image, and anything that comes later is manipulation, although it has been done for well over a century... Anyway - I try for the perfect image in camera, and use PS for what I didn't achieve. You may call me a dinosaur
Bottom line - creativity could be used for technical purposes, not only artistic.
With this image, regardless of technical shortcomings already addressed, the main point is that starry sky photos, whether trails or points - need an extra element that would complement them - examples: [link] or my shot of Hail-Bopp comet (I called it Transitions), which is certainly not the best, but illustrates the point...