Please be more specific, and instead of just griping, provide examples of the problem(s) right here, preferably with diffs, and we can fix the problem(s). For instance: 

 # You seem to imply that attribution is missing. If that's what you mean, where is the problem located? What's the exact wording. Can it be fixed? 
 # Also you state that an opinion is repeated twice. What is being stated twice, and where is that happening? Can it be fixed? 
 # Regarding the graphic image you mention. Where is a "conclusion" the source "does not make" being attributed to that SAME source? If that's not happening, there's no problem, or are you thinking of something else? I don't see anything even remotely related to that happening there. The text of the graphic currently states "Zerlina Maxwell cited these figures from the Guttmacher Institute, which found that state restrictions on abortion greatly increased in 2011." What's wrong with that text? Zerlina Maxwell does cite Guttmacher's figures (see the ref). That's an NPOV statement of fact. The rest of the statement is also a totally NPOV statement of fact: "... Guttmacher Institute, which found that state restrictions on abortion greatly increased in 2011." Is that not true? All the refs state those facts. Guttmacher really did document those facts. We are not making any synthesis. We are only stating, very neutrally, statements of fact about what they said, with no conclusions at all. 

 Help me here, and be very specific so we don't waste bytes and/or misunderstand each other. Use the numbering I have provided. Don't start another thread. Let's work on it. This is how collaborative editing works. We can do this together.