How to get reviewed (undergraduate student's work/research)
The title suggests you want new individuals to review your work, while the last sentence seems now like you need advice reviewing your own work. I'll focus primarily on the title question.

I think you should ask why is nobody commenting on my work?, rather than who can I get to comment on my work? and I'll share my thoughts on that question.

I don't know how you're presenting your work, but if it's anything like this question, that might play a significant role. 

What I mean to say is this. You did not explain your situation very well. Sure, I got the idea, but this is a relatively mundane situation, "Nobody will pay attention to me." It's just not communicated clearly (or professionally, do you really need to abbreviate department?), as I've pointed out that it's not even clear what question you're asking.

But when it comes to actual scientific research, we leave the world of the mundane. You are potentially discovering something nobody has seen before, or at least working on very technical material. Anyone reading your work or listening to you cannot simply fill in the gaps or correct any imprecision. If they could, it is overwhelmingly likely not 'research' in the academic sense of discovering or clarifying things that are new to the world, not just you.

My point is supported by your posts on MSE about Brocard's Conjecture (see, for example, here). You used very unusual notation, lots of handwaving, and were generally unable to explain yourself sufficiently, by mathematical standards, in the body of the post or in the comments. 

If you are asking faculty members to comment on work that's presented similarly, dismissal seems like a likely outcome. The flaws above are so serious that I can only assume (in that example) you hadn't made any real progress on Brocard's Conjecture, and thus it wasn't really worth my time to continue attempting to make sense of what you had presented.

You need to sit down and ask yourself some serious questions about what you have produced and how it's presented. Questions like "Is this true? How can I tell? Is my argument correct beyond a shadow of a doubt, and has it been tested on several examples? Have I made any conclusions that simply don't follow, or used leaps of logical faith to justify anything? Have I explained things so that, with minimal effort, this can be read and understood by a professional?"