Not bad, not bad at all. I'll give it 4 flaming chihuahua's out of 5.
It does include a few of the silly "standard" review site bits that mean nothing but almost everyone includes for some reason, like worrying about how "reflective" the base is, but otherwise pretty well written.
Most of what would have been my comments have already appeared above. While trying to avoid flagging dead horses, I'll add just a couple of thoughts:
Yes, lose the rating scale. Not only is it purely subjective, as others have said, but it also paints you into a corner. You gave the 9500 4/5, so if the next heatsink you test performs twice as well you'll almost have to give it a 5/5, right? But then what happens if the next heatsink after that performs four times as well? Give it a 6/5? Or go back and change the 9500's score to a 3/5? It could get messy. If you want to give readers a simple way understand where you think this product ranks in comparison to others one alternative is to provide a separate page where you rank the tested products by whatever standard you choose. That way when something new comes out you can simply reshuffle the rankings without having to go back and edit the older reviews. (
shameless self-promotion alert:
SPCR's Recommended PSU Listing)
On the IHS issue I would vote for always leaving it on. Test the product in the way the vast majority of your readers will be using it, even if it does affect accuracy slightly. As long as the testing is comparable between HSF's, pure "accuracy" is actually less important.
Your results graphs definitely lead something to be desired, as others have said. Just hard to read overall. If you're not going to break it out as °C/W, then dT should be the most prominant result, so don't let it be lost in the mess of other numbers. I wouldn't hold it up as the model of perfection for heatsink testing, but here's our
review of the 9500LED if you wanted to see a different way of presenting similar results.
Acoustic testing. Don't even bother trying to measure the noise. You won't be able to get equipment that can even come close for under $1000, and even then you'll likely find that your testing environment will need serious modification to produce meaningful results. You're actually better off just describing it subjectively, although your definition of "slight whining sound" is probably up for debate. At full speed our testing of the 9500 put it at 37dBa...too loud for us to even consider using at that speed.