The problem with this is that it doesn't help generate or review a "list". For the list to have value to others it has to be written with an audience other than the author in mind. It has to have something at least partially universal or transcendent about it.I have run almost all of the modules on the list and my judgment/rating of modules reflects the enjoyment my group and I got out of the module. Whether a module deserves to be on the list is always going to boil down to your play experience and style.
A problem with a list based upon individua play experience is that play experience varies vastly, and one of those variables is the DM. How good is the DM? Have they taken a module like X and spent hours and hours remixing and preparing it for their specific group? And did they do a good job at it? And then the group itself, perhaps they would have enjoyed any module as long as they were together playing it? Or the opposite of any of those.
My experience with Dark Sun is awesome. Is that because the setting is awesome or the DM was or was I just at a point where the theme resonated with me perfectly? I strongly dislike Dragon Lance. Is that because the adventures are poorly written? Or because the DM ran them with little to no player agency and I was at a point in my gaming life where that was not something I enjoyed?
For me to upvote every DS adventure and downvote every DL adventure on a list because of my play experiences with them are not going to do anyone reading the list any good is it? The list needs a basis for what it is listing, if it is going to be valuable. (And this list is not very valuable because it doesn't tell me what makes a good adventure.)