I am still fuzzy about who does what, but . . . if anyone would care to critique the picture below, I will agree to critique whatever picture that you point me to.
I'm not sure either, this is the first time I do this sort of exercise, so I hope the following isn't too far from what Joe intended for this. Anyway, here goes !
First thing I noticed was good lighting, it's interesting that it's from the side because the plastic edges diffuse and highlight the objects. The photograph is technically well made since it was able to retain and show a good range of lights to shadow, which I assume was Dave's objective here (as opposed to a more impressionistic view with more contrast/less nuance perhaps).
It's a good study of texture, just by looking I can almost tell what the objects feel like, the table, the plastic, the edges vs the handle.
I took a look at your website and that photograph fits in well with its set, I imagined it would be part of a series, and in that context it's coherent. It's coherent with the theme, the setup (lighting, arrangement, objects), and the format (rectangular, white frame). Although I can't seem to recognize any "traditional" format (at least sides ratio) like 3:2 or 6:7, it doesn't matter in this case since like I said the set is consistent in that.
There's good use of space, around and between the objects and spacing from the edges, and from a composition perspective it looks thought out (as opposed to photographing something that happened to be already there, that's my impression at least). Although there aren't many items, it makes it clear what the subject is.
I'm not sure how to approach this last point. I guess all the images here will be on their own, even if they originally belonged to a set, so perhaps it's not "fair" to mention this in isolation. But in any case, I find that aside from the little fork shadow and despite the clear lighting it's very much two dimensional and doesn't convey any impression of depth or volume. By contrast, there are other images in that set that do that, so I think it's possible that it was done on purpose for this particular image. I don't have much knowledge about still life but it seems to me a bit more volume would make it more interesting, since we're looking top down with a flattening perspective.
That said, looking closely (perhaps because of my monitor crushing the shadows on the right) the fork does look just a little above the surface while the spoon and knife seem almost flattened in the shadow, which makes an interesting, although very slight, contrast between the left and right side.
I think that's the only image in that set which repeats something of the item that came before it and I find it curious that you chose that one to represent here, because it seemed it followed on something, or even more that the others, was part of something.
I don't really have anything to say on where to take it from here. Technically it seems you've got it under control, so no comments there; as for the subject and the set I honestly don't know what to say since still life is something I'm so unfamiliar with.
