For me, a balance must be met when trying to be terse and evocative. There is some stuff out there that people absolutely love, but I find completely dry and blocks my creativity when reading/preparing to run it because it's too terse. Sometimes there is too much evocativeness....as in, well, 'I guess Ill spend the time to look up this word in the dictionary because I have no clue what it means' sorta evocativeness.
There is also the 'history' component (not sure if history is the right word in this context) that Bryce doesn't like, and when used too much I can agree with him as it may not come up during play, but sometimes having a little history with an item or room helps me make the overall adventure flow better. Or maybe it's the story wrapped into the writing that I can grip on or relate too. Being terse and evocative can sometimes feel like I just hit a wall (i.e. dry), whereas a little history/story/background? can help explain the designer's vision and help me feel more welcomed (?) to run the adventure as I'm not scratching my head trying to figure out what approach the designer was going for. Not sure I'm explaining it too well. I am not talking about a huge several page storyline or background in the beginning, but maybe a few short hints why something is the way it is. Like maybe a secret exit out of a dungeon that only one specific NPC or monster knows about--lets say Harry knows about it. It probably won't come up in play--PCs would just find the secret door. However, that little touch of background helps me as a DM because if Harry is confronted, then tries to flee, then I know Harry may try to head over to the secret exit rather than somewhere else. I think sometimes adventures can be too terse and don't include things like that.
I liked Huso's Geir Loe Cyn-crul. I think it did ok in Bryce's review and it does have a lot of hack n slash, but to me, when reading it, I was able to picture what my characters would be doing in the presented situations, which helps me run it as a DM. I don't get that visual from some other stuff I read (i.e. I call it dry) which makes me not want to run it. I think everyone's brain is wired different.
I'm a fan of bullets. I like them because it follows the K.I.S.S principle--Keep It Simple Stupid. Bullets are a tool to help organize your original paragraph--which as others have said is not meant for the PCs but to inspire the DM about the description of the room. Bolding words in the original paragraph, then bolding the same word in the bullet point makes it easier to check out and keeps things organized. Granted, bullets may not be needed in that case and you could start off a new line with the bolded word, but I think bullets with the indent breaks it off from the original paragraph so you dont have a text wall and makes it look sharp. The challenge that I have, is trying to keep those bullets short because if they get too long, then the idea behind them has failed. Tables are better when there is a lot more info to convey. Flow charts work good for expressing timetables or if there are a bunch of different story plots/agendas by factions--I've only used it once so far in Vermilion because there is a lot going on.
While I don't believe in giving everyone trophies, you need to have fun with what you are doing. You can pick things apart for years and trying to perfect everything--but will it ever see the light of day? Is anything truly perfect? Put forth your best effort, stand behind what you are publishing--make sure you are proud of it, then be humble, open-minded and learn from your peers/reviewers--it will only make you better for your future projects. But in order to hit that learning stage, you need to get it out there for others--battling it out in your own head forever slows down the learning process. There is multiple ways to present an adventure that is good and easy to run at the table--pick a technique or way you like and try to make it the best. I like bullets, but it's definitely not the #1 method out there--to each their own.