It looks fine to me; some of the references look a bit obscure, but I wouldn't call them "unreliable". I'd say "Curb Safe Charmer" has been harsh; there are many, many articles that are supported by worse citations, and are less notable, but exist in mainspace.
[Edit] I wonder if Curb Safe Charmer automated his review using something like this?
[Edit] I wonder if Curb Safe Charmer automated his review using something like this?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02894-x