Editorial Guidelines and Corrections Policy at Anime Array

Purpose of This Policy

Anime Array is a fan-built anime and manga discovery platform. We publish guides, character profiles, streaming directories, seasonal calendars, AI tool reviews, and opinion pieces in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi, and German. Because our readers rely on us when they decide what to watch next, where to watch it legally, and which characters or series are worth their time, we hold every piece of content to a written standard.

This page documents how we research and review anime information, what we promise when we recommend a streaming site or an AI feature, how we handle mistakes, and how you can ask us to correct something we got wrong. It applies to the main site at animearray.site, the roleplay hub at roleplay.animearray.site, and the Otaku assistant site at otaku.animearray.site. It was last updated on 23 September 2026.

This policy is part of our broader commitment to honest, accurate, and transparent publishing. It sits alongside our About page, our legal guide, our privacy policy, and our terms of service.

Who We Are

Anime Array is built by a core team of nine college students who started the project in a dorm room in 2025. We are the people behind the code: we maintain the catalogue, write the guides, test the streaming sites, and build the AI tools. We publish under the Anime Array name, and individual team members sign the guides and reviews they personally wrote and verified.

The team is organised into three groups:

The Data Team maintains the anime catalogue, seasonal schedules, and streaming directory. They verify titles, studios, genres, air dates, and episode counts daily.
The AI Team builds Otaku AI, AniPick AI, Vision AI, and the character roleplay models. They train, test, and clean the models before anything reaches users.
The Platform Team looks after speed, uptime, account features, watchlists, and community feedback.

We answer reader questions through the contact page. For legal matters, including copyright complaints, use the DMCA process.

Who approves what

Responsibility is assigned by task rather than by title. A staff member who writes a guide is responsible for the facts inside it; the Data Team verifies catalogue and scheduling data; the AI Team owns descriptions of AI behaviour; and the Platform Team owns performance and uptime claims. Before anything is published, at least one reviewer who was not the sole author signs off on the factual claims. We keep a changelog of who wrote and who reviewed each major page so that responsibility is never anonymous.

Keeping the team honest

Because Anime Array is a small, fan-built site, we rely on our own written rules to stay consistent. This policy is the manual every contributor follows. New contributors read this policy before publishing and are paired with an experienced teammate for their first several articles. When a mistake shows that a rule is unclear, we fix the rule, not just the mistake, and log the change here.

How We Research and Review Anime Content

Every guide, ranking, character profile, and streaming recommendation on Anime Array follows the same research pipeline. This keeps our content consistent and makes it clear how a given article reached its conclusions.

Watch first, write second

A reviewer must have completed a series, or be actively caught up on it, before that series appears in our top lists or character write-ups. We do not write summaries of shows we have never seen, and we do not copy-paste descriptions from other databases. When a staff writer has not personally watched a series, the article says so and relies only on verifiable, cited facts such as broadcast dates and production credits.

Verify streaming sources ourselves

Every site in our streaming directory is tested by hand. We load the site, check that episodes currently play, confirm the available dubbing or subtitle languages, measure load time, and note whether the site supports standard devices. A listing is added, updated, or removed only after a human has verified it. We do not accept payment, free subscriptions, or review copies in exchange for a higher placement in our lists.

Check official sources for facts

For premiere dates, studio changes, voice-cast information, franchise ownership, and streaming availability, we verify against official announcements, studio pages, and distributor listings where they exist. When primary sources are unavailable or contradictory, we note the uncertainty rather than guessing.

Separate fact from opinion

Calendar data, catalogue details, and technical specifications are treated as factual and held to the highest accuracy bar. Recommendations, scores, and “why you should watch” reasoning are clearly opinion pieces written by named staff. We never present a subjective take as objective fact.

The three-reviewer rule

Any article that makes a factual claim a reader might act on (such as “this streaming site is free,” “this series has 74 episodes,” or “this dub exists”) passes through at least one additional review by a second team member before publication. Content that only expresses opinion may publish after a single review.

How We Write About Streaming Sites

Anime Array is a discovery and information platform. We do not host, upload, or transmit video files, and we do not claim ownership of any anime franchise, character, or trademark. Our directory links to websites that host anime, and we explain the legal position of linking in our linking explainer.

When we review or list a streaming service, we disclose:

Whether the service is free, ad-supported, subscription-based, or a trial.
Which dub and subtitle language options are genuinely available.
Geographic restrictions we are aware of.
Whether the listing was tested within the last 90 days.
Any relationship between the site and Anime Array (we do not have paid partners at the time of writing).

If a listed site changes its behaviour after we test it, we update the listing at the next scheduled review and add a correction note if the change is material.

How We Write About Anime, Manga, and Characters

Character profiles and series guides on Anime Array aim to be accurate, relevant, and spoiler-conscious. Our character pages follow a template: a short non-spoiler overview, ability and personality notes, series context, a “why fans like them” section, and, for roleplay characters, a description of the conversational model.

We pay close attention to plagiarism and paraphrase. Staff writers are expected to describe characters in their own words. Where a phrase from an official source is worth quoting, we quote it in quotation marks and attribute it. Automated paraphrasing tools are not used to generate article text. Our internal review checks every article for duplication against public sources and against our own previously published work.

Fans often debate details such as character ages, power levels, and timings across different canons. Where versions conflict, we say which canon a claim comes from (manga, anime, movie, or light novel) rather than presenting one reading as the only truth.

How We Write About Our AI Tools

We publish descriptions of Otaku AI, AniPick AI, Vision AI, and our roleplay characters. These descriptions only claim what the tools demonstrably do, and we update them when a model changes.

AI-generated or AI-assisted content is handled transparently. If a tool or a workflow used machine assistance at any point, the resulting page discloses it and a human reviews the output before publication. Nobody on the Anime Array team represents automated output as purely human-written work, and we never add hidden AI text to pages.

What we will not claim about AI

We do not claim that a model gives legal, medical, or financial advice, and we do not promise outcomes it cannot guarantee. Character roleplay models are creative tools, not experts. AniPick AI recommendations reflect the taste data available to it at the time and may not suit every viewer; we describe how a recommendation is produced instead of promising a perfect match. Otaku AI tracking depends on the watchlists users choose to maintain, and we say so in the product description. If a model changes behaviour after an update, we update the relevant description within the same release cycle.

How AI-assisted pages are checked

Any page with machine assistance passes the same human review as a fully manual article: a person verifies every factual claim, corrects tone and phrasing, and confirms that nothing sensitive or inaccurate slipped through. Reviewers treat model output as an untrusted draft, not as a finished page. The final published article always reflects a human decision about what to keep, rewrite, or remove.

Sources and Citations

We cite the sources we rely on wherever a fact is not common knowledge. Typical sources include official studio announcements, distributor pages, publisher sites, production staff credits, and, for community topics, well-known fan-maintained references used as cross-checks rather than as a single authority.

Inline links in our articles point to the page the claim came from whenever practical. If a source sits behind a login or is taken down, we keep the material in our internal notes so the fact can be re-verified.

Transparency and Disclosure

Readers should always know the relationship between Anime Array and the things we write about. As of the date of this policy:

Anime Array has no paid advertising partners among streaming sites in our directory.
We do not sell featured placements in top lists or character pages.
We do not accept review copies, free premium accounts, or gifts in exchange for coverage.
Our AI tools are free to use and we state that anywhere we describe them.

If this ever changes, we will update this page before running any paid placement, and paid placements will always be labelled as such on the page itself.

Factual Accuracy: How We Track, Update, and Date Content

Anime information changes constantly: sequels are announced, films slip release dates, and streaming licences expire. Our Data Team reviews the catalogue on a rolling basis, and pages that depend on facts carry a last-updated date.

We use four statuses on our pages:

Current: verified within the last quarter.
Recently updated: changed within the last 90 days, with the change logged in page history.
Needs review: something suggests the information may be stale (for example, a news report contradicts our page).
Archived: older seasonal or event content kept for reference and clearly labelled as historical.

Our update cadence

Streaming directory entries are re-tested at least every 90 days. Season calendars are refreshed as studios announce schedules. Character profiles are reviewed when a major new entry in the franchise changes the character. AI tool descriptions are updated when a model or feature changes.

Corrections Policy

We correct factual mistakes as quickly as we can, and we are transparent when we do. If we publish something wrong, we fix it. This section explains exactly how we decide what to correct and what readers can expect.

What counts as a correction

A correction applies to a demonstrable factual error: a wrong air date, a wrong episode count, a wrong studio credit, a listing that no longer matches the live site, or a quote attributed to the wrong person. Debates about taste, ranking position, or canon interpretation are not corrections unless a fact was mis-stated.

How to report an error

Use the contact page and include the page URL, the text you believe is wrong, and the evidence for the correction (ideally a link to an official source). You can also reach us through the social profiles linked on our pages. We read every message; priority goes to errors that could mislead a reader into paying for the wrong service or watching the wrong thing.

What happens after you report an error

We aim to confirm that a report is valid within five business days. If we need more time to verify against primary sources, we reply to say so. When a correction is accepted:

We fix the article text and update the last-updated date.
For material corrections, we add a short correction note at the bottom of the article stating what changed and when.
If the error affected a ranking or a directory listing, we re-verify the affected entry and, where needed, update related pages that relied on the old information.
If the error was reported by a reader, we thank them by name in the correction note unless they prefer to stay anonymous.

Significant corrections

A correction is “significant” if the original information could have caused real harm or cost: for example, a streaming site listed as free that is actually paid, a scam site wrongly listed as safe, or a medically or legally relevant claim. Significant corrections are logged on this page in the correction register below, in addition to the note on the article.

Correction Register

This register lists significant corrections made to published content. Minor wording fixes and style edits are not logged here.

23 September 2026: Corrected the homepage's outdated summer-season wording and refreshed the Japanese streaming grid to autumn 2026 schedules at animearray.site.

The register is a living record. If you believe a correction was missed, contact us with the URL and the issue.

Review Process and Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions at Anime Array are made independently of any commercial interest. Rankers, ratings, and recommendations reflect the honest judgment of the staff who wrote them. Because the same team builds the AI features we write about, we are careful not to review our own products against one another; product descriptions are labelled as first-party documentation rather than third-party reviews.

The team reviews this editorial policy itself twice a year, and when a significant correction, a change in commercial relationships, or a major feature launch happens.

Plagiarism and AI-Content Policy

Original work is core to our search-quality and EEAT commitments. Our rules are simple:

No copying text from other sites, databases, or reviews.
No AI generation presented as human writing.
No wholesale machine paraphrase of other publications.
Any AI-assisted work is disclosed and reviewed by a human before publication.

These rules protect readers and keep our own catalogue clean. If a reader believes content on Anime Array was copied from their work, they can tell us through the contact page, and we will investigate under this policy and the DMCA notice.

What We Do Not Publish

A few categories of content are always rejected, regardless of traffic potential:

Content that helps users bypass regional restrictions or pirated-streaming activity we have verified as unsafe.
Pirated fan-subbed copies, leaked episodes, or non-official video files hosted by third parties.
Speculation presented as fact about unannounced seasons, movie dates, or franchise ownership.
Deliberately vague, keyword-stuffed, or duplicated pages that exist only to chase search traffic.
Any text copied from another publication without permission and attribution.
Rankings bought, exchanged, or influenced by the subject of the ranking.

If a piece of content sits close to one of these lines, the writer explains the situation to the editor before publishing, and the editor records the reasoning. We would rather not publish an article than publish one we cannot stand behind.

Multilingual Publishing Standard

Anime Array publishes in English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Hindi, and German. A translated page is held to the same standard as the English original: it is reviewed by a fluent speaker, carries the same correction obligations, and states clearly which language version is the source. When a translation is being reviewed, the source language version remains the authoritative record.

Occasionally a regional edition covers local availability that differs from the English page, such as a licence that exists only in one territory. When editions diverge, each edition says so explicitly so a reader is never misled into assuming a service that works in one country works in another.

What Readers Should Expect from a List Article

Before we publish a “top sites,” “best anime,” or “upcoming” article, a writer confirms every entry with current evidence, the editor verifies the facts, and the page carries the review date. We also add the reason each entry made the list, so a reader can tell whether a placement is about quality, price, language support, or uniqueness.

If a list becomes outdated before its next scheduled refresh, we retract the affected entry rather than leaving it to mislead. Retracted list entries are marked on the page and replaced at the next review.

Contact for Corrections, Complaints, and Appeals

If you believe we made a factual error, used copied text, or treated you unfairly in a ranking, please contact us. We treat every complaint as a chance to verify.

General feedback and errors: contact page.
Copyright and takedowns: DMCA notice.
Corrections to financial, safety, or legal claims: flagged as urgent in the contact subject line.
If you are not satisfied with our response, you may ask that an editor outside the original article's writer review the dispute.

Thank you for reading Anime Array, for trusting us, and for helping us keep the guide to your next binge accurate, honest, and free. We are glad you are here for the ride.

How Reader Feedback Shapes This Policy

Reader reports have already changed how we review streaming listings. When several readers flag the same behaviour on a listed site, we re-test that site before the scheduled cycle and, if needed, add a warning to the listing itself. Pattern-level feedback, where many readers note the same weakness across different pages, is discussed in the next policy review and can lead to a documented change to this page.

If reader feedback leads to a change in this policy or in a published claim, we credit the reader in the relevant correction note. We also keep a private log of the reports we receive and how each one was resolved, so that similar reports in the future can be answered faster.

Why We Publish This Policy

A written editorial policy is more than an internal rulebook. It is a public promise: it tells readers what they can hold us to, and it tells search engines, regulators, and rights holders who we are and how we behave. Publishing it makes our work auditable. Anyone can compare a page against this document and judge whether we met our own standard.

We publish it so that trust is not a vague claim we make but a specific contract we describe. If you can read exactly how we verify a streaming link, how we decide whether a correction note is required, and who reviews an article before it goes live, then you can decide for yourself whether Anime Array deserves your time. That is the standard we want to be judged against, and this page exists so that judgement is possible.