Thank you for the detailed review,
@lavinia.
You are absolutely right, that the initial example and the spheres feel distracting. It disturbed me, too. The reason is, that I originally wanted to focus on vector fields instead of the group. I began by noting, that there is this general vision of vectors attached to points on one hand and the abstract formulas on the other. I thought some examples with actual curves (flows, 1-parameter groups), groups and specific functions would be helpful, as they are often banned to exercises or get lost in the "bigger" theory. That's where those two paragraphs came from. As I looked closer into the example of SU(2) I got more and more involved with it instead of my original purpose vector fields.
So the actual distraction had been SU(2). To be honest, I wanted to understand connections better, esp. Ehresmann and Levi-Civita and hope to deal with it (on the example of SU(2) again) in a third part. So the two parts so far are more of a "what has happened before" part of the story. But the more I've read about SU(2), the more I found it interesting. I kept the distracting parts, as I recognized, that they are a good to quote or a copy & paste source for answers on PF. Up to now, I used the various notations of derivatives as well as the stereographic projection in an answer to a thread here. And as one-parameter groups are essential to the theory, I kept this part. And why not have a list of spheres of small dimensions, when one of them is meant to be the primary example of actual calculations? That's basically the reason for the felt (by you and by me) inhomogeneous structure and why the article is a bit of a collection of formulas.
So thanks, again, and I'll see if I can add a couple of explanations which you suggested.