The main issue I see with this article is criteria 1, 2, and 3.
The article is not easy to read; it generally presumes a lot of familiarity with humanitarian aid that cannot be used as a prerequisite to understanding this article. The lead is not well-organized and seems haphazard, mirroring the content of the body.
The sourcing is a bunch of think tank and non-profit sources connected to the subject, and the article also focuses on basically one summit and one report, all of which makes me question whether this is a notable subject outside of humanitarian work itself.
As an example of where this is a problem, the assertion that n 2021, the European Union Commissioner Janez Lenarčič was criticized for comments made in an interview with The New Humanitarian in which he suggested the lack of localisation was the result of a lack of capacity amongst local aid agencies is sourced to.... The New Humanitarian itself. If these are the only two major elements on localization (there's nothing on the overall history of the movement? No info more recent than 2021? Nothing older than 2016?) then it suggests it should be merged, at the least.
If it is notable, then it really needs a wider variety of sources. A cursory search of Google Books and Scholar pulls up a number of books and more scholarly articles to draw from that appear to be missing perspectives in this article.
The article treats as gospel the ODI report, which leads to issues with neutrality (crit. 4) since the article itself is assuming the ODI's point of view tacitly.
I don't think there's a valid fair use rationale for File:Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation book cover.jpg—the book cover is purely illustrative in a topic in which it is not the main focus and thus identifying the cover has limited utility per the non-free content criteria.
Given the systemic problems I see with the article at present, I am failing the nomination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 21:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]