Thanks for the reply! Most of them make much more sense now. As to 1. and 2., I'd say you could want to consider merging those clarifications into the original

Thanks for the reply! Most of them make much more sense now. As to 1. and 2., I'd say you could want to consider merging those clarifications into the original article. In 1., arguably some background knowledge of Unity could be expected from the reader, and maybe I'm just not the intended target. But especially in 2., I'm afraid I can't agree that those clarifications are there, just hidden between words. There are very little words in 2. in the article. As to 3.2 & 3.3, I don't really get the clarifications unfortunately; I think it shows even more that I don't really have knowledge of Unity, so I'm starting to think maybe that wasn't really an article for me to start with. Thanks for the interesting and insightful discussion!