well done. Your diverse sources should fix the problem. If its taken down again (which I don´t hope) maybe a balanced "criticism" section with for example the rankings you mentioned(in fact, it is a critique, even though positive one) helps to make clear our standpoint.

other "negative" criticism is

"Chohan 2018 argues that the concentration of initial wealth could lead to a concentration of Steem Power and thus to accountability asymmetries and the monopolization of power, which would undermine the original cryptoanarchist vision of platforms like Steemit.

Thewall 2017 conducted a study where he showed that longer, more positive comments with personal information get a higher financial reward than more informational articles and concludes that interpersonal communication rather than quality content provision has driven the reward distribution so far."

but lets hope they take it as it is