Problem is "bulge" and "drop" are not the same thing, but used synonymously in the article.
It seems pretty obvious to me that "a bulge of water" is used purely colloquially there. The point is that an object would have to be hundreds of feet tall to be seen at all, and yet we can see it in its entirety. That said, if you can refer me to a reputable source that clearly defines this terminology, I'll make the minute adjustments required, possibly accompanying the article with a diagram for the avoidance of doubt.
The hidden amount is around 260ft (off the top of my head)
Assuming you're standing up. You're not supposed to be, in the Bishop Experiment. The reason why the drop was used instead of the marginally lower 300ft you'd get is that the maths is simpler and easier to verify. Unfortunately, we have to make our content accessible to people who accuse you of lying to them when you try to explain even the basics of special relativity. Some accuracy has to make way for the sake of accessibility.
If it is a clear and chilly day, i wonder why people are sunbathing and paddling in the water? Not normal activities when it is “chilly”.
I've visited California before. Suffice to say that "chilly" is a relative term.
Ultimately, this is just another thread where RE'ers complain about the fact that sometimes humans speak colloquially. "Ga-hyuk, it can't be flat because mountains exist!"
If you can demonstrate that the phrasing you propose is fairly standard, I'm open to adjusting it. That said, a cursory search of your terminology seems to reveal metabunk, and metabunk only. If it's just a matter of some forum's personal preference, then I'll go with our own.