Even technical observations may not be irrelevant. I recently saw some Paolo Pellegrin pictures next to some Salgados (Arles, of course). Pellegrin's were full of energy, but so were Salgado's, and next to them, Pellegrin's stuff looked weak and self-indulgent. It felt to me as if Pellegrin was working at the limits of his abilities, while Salgado still had immense power in reserve. It's like seeing a baby Fiat going flat out at 80 mph, or a Bristol that still has 60 mph in reserve at the same speed.
Sure, it's personal taste, and if I were as good as Pellegrin, I'd be happy, but equally, it's not always a bad thing to analyze how and why your personal taste is the way it is. You may even decide you want to change it. But you need to see a lot of pictures, and think about why you like some, and not others, if you want to get beyond "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like."
And you have to get beyond it if you are to become a better photographer: you have to know what you like among your own stuff, and be able to recognize/ concentrate upon your strengths, and know how to skate over or (better still) get over your weaknesses.
This doesn't necessarily have to be verbal, but it probably does no harm to try to put it into words. In particular, it may be useful to put into words what you don't like, even if you can't as easily express what you do like.
Cheers,
R.