"Worldbuilding" is one of the things that always worries me when I read of it in review. Like all writing tricks, world-building should be invisible - just like building tension and emotional responses. When we read a novel we are being manipulated, but if we notice it happening then it's a fail (all in my most humble of opinions, of course
). So when a reviewer notices worldbuilding enough to comment about it, I worry.
Nothing is perfect, what matters is whether it works while you read it, and this will vary from reader to reader.
The most memorable, relatively recent, failure for me was
Too Like the Lightning by Ada Palmer. Now I know this series works for some, so it's probably just an authorial voice thing, but for me this was so obviously contrived that I never lost the feeling that I was being manipulated by the author - at times I felt downright pushed around!
Whereas for me Harry Potter worked. I think it cheated, but it worked. It cheated by starting out so obviously as a children's story. The seemingly outlandish clothes and names, and the inherent contradictions, were perfectly acceptable for a kids' story and so I went along with it. But somewhere along the line everything grew up, but by then the outlandish parts were all part of my new reality and so it continued to work. For this reader at least, nothing was "built", it's just the way it was.
Another that worked perfectly for me was
The Night Circus by Erin Morgenstern.