[chrismorgan]

It’s 10,000 words and a curious mixture of dense and sparse. There’s quite a bit of duplication (especially of figures), a fair bit of circumlocution in the narrative sections, and a lot of meaninglessly precise figures, half of which should have been omitted altogether. I am confident it could be significantly improved by a hard cap of 5,000 words, and suspect even 2,000 words could still be better (though 1,000 would definitely be too short to convey it all). Even apart from that, it definitely needed a table of contents, to set expectations.

As a general challenge to people: write your article, then see if you can halve its length without losing much. If it felt too easy, repeat the process! There’s a family of well-known quotes that amount to “sorry for writing a long letter, I didn’t have time to write a short letter”. Concise expression is not the easiest, but very valuable. Many a 100-page technical book can be improved by reduction to a one-page non-prose overview/cheat sheet (perhaps using diagrams and tables, but consider going more freeform like you might on a whiteboard) plus a ten page abridged version.