[Certhas]

100 percent agree with the article. Wedge products are fundamental, GA is weird ideology.

I had the bad fortune of reviewing some GA research articles once upon a time. It was almost embarrassing. Everything of substance had been published in a conceptually cleaner bivector language previously. The only "contribution" was writing everything in terms of weirder, more convoluted concepts that contributed neither technical clarity nor conceptual parsimony.,

[Steuard]

Do you by chance have references to those conceptually cleaner bivector publications? I've spent a good bit of time looking for other people working in that space, and haven't found much other than an article by Jancewicz from 1980. (I like to imagine that my articles these past few years have been "conceptually clean", but they certainly aren't "previous" to much GA work.)

[Certhas]

I am talking about some very specialised results in an application area. Not Electro Magnetism which I believe you are referring to?

The formulation of EM with antisymmetric field tensors (which is the same thing as a bivector) is certainly very old and absolute standard in the physics curriculum. And I certainly was taught the definition in terms of wedge products that is also given here in undergrad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_tensor

(See the section: Relationship to the classic fields).

Not sure what you are looking for beyond that?