I didn't actually check exactly what OP had said. I find that OP now doesn't use the word "neither" at all, but I guess the sentence that now says "none of the presented options are without problems" used to say "neither". Which I agree looks very strange. (The corrected text is arguably still wrong: "none" = "not one", and you would say "not one of them is ...", not "not one of them are ...". But almost everyone, almost all the time, uses "are" rather than "is" with "none", so I'm reluctant to call it wrong; correctness in language is determined by how actual language-users actually speak and write.)
So, my apologies: I made what I now think was probably a wrong guess at what the article had done that you didn't like, and my examples aren't really to the point.
I had a look in the OED. With the neither/nor/nor/... construction, it regards any number of branches as normal (as one would hope given the examples above). In "neither of them" and similar usages, its main definition says specifically "of two". It does explicitly countenance using it with more options, but describes this as "Now rare".
So I still wouldn't go so far as to say that what OP originally wrote is outright wrong, but I do agree that it was odd and changing it was probably a good move.
Well, yes, but .. I think I neglected to consider how you do construct neither a nor b nor c (... ) lists. So I was over absolutist in my thinking. You made a good point. You made me think.
I didn't actually check exactly what OP had said. I find that OP now doesn't use the word "neither" at all, but I guess the sentence that now says "none of the presented options are without problems" used to say "neither". Which I agree looks very strange. (The corrected text is arguably still wrong: "none" = "not one", and you would say "not one of them is ...", not "not one of them are ...". But almost everyone, almost all the time, uses "are" rather than "is" with "none", so I'm reluctant to call it wrong; correctness in language is determined by how actual language-users actually speak and write.)
So, my apologies: I made what I now think was probably a wrong guess at what the article had done that you didn't like, and my examples aren't really to the point.
I had a look in the OED. With the neither/nor/nor/... construction, it regards any number of branches as normal (as one would hope given the examples above). In "neither of them" and similar usages, its main definition says specifically "of two". It does explicitly countenance using it with more options, but describes this as "Now rare".
So I still wouldn't go so far as to say that what OP originally wrote is outright wrong, but I do agree that it was odd and changing it was probably a good move.