Good idea to begin with. But, I can see it being misrepresented/brigaded by the reviewers unless the review criteria is made a little more stringent.

For e.g. most general reviewers will leave reviews like "Good team, good project, strong fundamentals". In other words, "I bought the coin so it is definitely a good project and you should buy it too".

In the future I think there can be a verified technical expert reviewers section and a general reviewers section. A technical expert can give their insights into things like the quality of the code, github commits etc and whether the project looks technically feasible, if not then why not? Then there can be other criteria on the backgrounds of the team members, their past history, failed ventures etc.

I know this will be a lot of work for each coin and I am not sure anyone who will contribute may do it for free. But, this is what will improve the site credibility in the end.

Finally, I was reading some of the reviews and came across some reviews by someone who has been accused in the past of shilling "bitconnect" on youtube. I am not sure if it is a real or a troll profile. Like others have said, unverified or dubious users might be a problem in trusting the reviews.