This would have been a good review, if it was more objective, less derogatory and less contradictory. Hive account@crypto.talk's suggestion to update the images was a good call.

You say;

The app looks really dull and empty.

The availability of this [chat] function on Partiko makes the app really important.

How can a dull and empty app be important?

You say;

The resteem feature has its importance that can not be overemphasized. Partiko is the only app amongst the three (3) I'm reviewing that allow users resteem articles.

So much for a dull and empty app.

Contradiction:
You say;

I like the concept of sticking with white and blue colors which are somewhat steem's colors but, it's not cool. Maybe I'm asking for too much but it'll be great to see colors on steem android clients.

You like it, yet you want more colours. However, your updated screenshots of Partiko is in contrast with your review.

According to you;

My questions after this erroneous assertion, therefore, are;

Did you do this review in a hurry to gain reward?
If no, why are you misinforming users that Partiko have no draft feature and it isn't secured?
Is it because you dislike Partiko for not being an open source project? Or is it because you don't know the app enough to write a review on it?

This post seemed to be focused on nullifying Partiko's strengths, to suit your narrative.
Why is the focus on Partiko and not esteem? Shouldn't the focus be on esteem app, which is an open source project?
Shouldn't the focus be on both, if it is a comparison?

Are "non-open source project" now being reviewed in utopian contributions? I don't think so, and I believe Hive account@didic and Hive account@tykee would agree with me.