Thanks for your suggestions. They're very helpful. I removed six of the less relevant links. Mostly from the beginning. The signal to noise ratio in them was indeed too high. Thanks again for pointing that out. I also removed a link to SIAI from point #6 based on your suggestions.

I left the links to other charities in the first paragraph for now because I feel like they are similar to the list of below-average charities I link to in #2 -- I mention them in the context of failure. So I think most people will realize they are not recommending them as helpful resources but just citing them as well-known examples. Although maybe I should remove the links just to deny those groups PageRank juice... especially since I mention them so high up in the article. I'm gonna go "nofollow" them now.

I don't want to quibble too much because my intent isn't to be right, but to make the best article I'm capable of making that people can link their friends to. So if you still have objections, could you elaborate on how I'm being partisan in #7 and #8? Here's how it looks to me now that I've made updates:

3 - Guilty. I'm definitely being partisan here. I make a direct link to SIAI. Although I then immediately link to a video which goes a long way to support my claim that SIAI is in fact a high leverage charity. I think scope insensitivity prevents most people (including me) from imagining that a cause with something approaching existential risk reduction's potential to create value could even be possible. That video which I link to for support has been out for a year now. There were hundreds of people who saw that presentation. And over a thousand have watched it online. I've never seen anyone make any counter-claims or a better estimates. I'm sure a refinement must be possible -- one which I'd love to see if anyone's up to the challenge. But I feel like it's a solid argument in a broad sense and justifies me linking to SIAI at least once directly.

6 - Link to SIAI removed.

7 - I link to a post about why money is superior to volunteering (in all but the most extreme cases) which justifies it's conclusion rather well. Even in the derivative links, I don't think there's an appeal to support any particular charity.

8 - I link to an outside academic reference which explains x-risks rather well to someone who knows nothing. But it's in the context of a list of other causes activists might care about. I think it's pretty neutral. It's not like existential risk reduction is some taboo form of charitable undertaking that's inferior to poverty reduction or disease eradication. My current calibration tells me that x-risk reduction may be superior, but I'm only making the weaker, implicit claim that it's at least equal.

In the final analysis, I'm not undecided on the matter, so I don't think my piece needs to be entirely objective. It should be possible for someone reading my article to figure out what conclusion I've come to if they'd actually like to know.