Sean,
I think you can do better then that in regarxds to looking at, and describing what you see with these greens. Like I said, no answer is a wrong answer.
The first green, is in my feelings, a somewhat dangerous green. Ironically, I've never been on this green once where someone was hitting into it, not another group on it. I've played the course--a private club--about 4 times. It was built as a means because of property boundary. in my opinion, not gimmicky entirely.
The second green does work for me in terms of safety and its a pretty challenging putting surface for both holes. I've played it with Peter and told him so too. Although since the last time I was there, the bunkers near the green have taken a odd heart-shaped look to them (but that would be commenting on something other then the putting surface itself) But I do think this green is a gimmick when considering how the architect went about it. (more on that later)
The third green doesn't work for me, and its because the entire thing is an eyesore to look at even from ground level. Its downright preposterous. However, the green is not as gimmicky as you would think. That's because it was by means; it was the only thing the architect could really do thanks to the architect of the second picture--taking the other architects land when they were designing and building these courses! The architect of the third picture gets points for some pretty creative green complexes throughout his course at this project, and though this/these particular green(s), the entire cluster of them--well cluster is a good word--it receives from me both a passing and failing grade!
The fourth green is a gimmick. Pure and simple. It isn't as dangerous as it looks, but the architect strove for building it as part of a rule.
The fifth green is a gimmick--the entire course--is a gimmick. I have never played it, but have seen it being built and when it was completed.
The sixth green is not a gimmick and it does in fact work rather well, no different then the Old Course By means, it was needed the property here isn't wide, but its on pure, unadulterated sand dunes. The architect did in fact strive for building a double green as part of a rule.
The seventh green is not dangerous, but the green is rather gimmicky. By means, it was needed due to routing, but the entire course is a routing problem with the two hardest holes on the course being the 1st and 10th holes and blindness literally everywhere.
The eighth and final green is a perfect example of gimmick, and a dangerous one at that. You can see that since its debut that the concept has been abandoned, with the inclusion of a row of some non-native to the site palm trees. Before the palms, they also started to maintain it as two separate greens in an effort to add a buffer, which didn't work. the first time I played this course, a ball literally was skulled from the approach of the eighth green and literally missed hitting me in the head by inches! No doubt the architect of record would have rejoiced if it had!