:The most that can be said about the Athanasian Creed's delineation of the Trinity is that it is fuller than that in the other two creeds mentioned.  I don't think you can say that any particular exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity is a (the?) full delineation of it.  Are we to say that the expositions by later theologians such as Aquinas are less full than that in the Athanasian Creed, on which these later theologians built?  
 :To say that, according to the 381 creed, the Holy Spirit is merely "worshipped and glorified" unjustifiably leaves out the highly important phrase about the way the Holy Spirit is worshipped and glorified: "with the Father and the Son".  The First Council of Constantinople, which inserted these words into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, seems certainly to have thought it was thereby asserting the divinity of the Holy Spirit against the "Macedonians". Abraham too was "worshipped" and glorified while still alive, but not with the Father and the Son. 
 :Though here you use the word "explicitly", in the article you changed "The Nicene Creed explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus" to "The Nicene Creed affirms the divinity of Jesus", and then, with your "In contradistinction to the Apostles' Creed", thereby suggested that the divinity of Jesus is not affirmed even implicitly in the Apostles' Creed.  You know, of course, that the Apostles' Creed, as we know it - I don't mean the Old Roman Symbol - is much later than the Nicene Creed: we should not give readers the impression that those who drew up the Apostles' Creed did not believe in the divinity of Jesus!  In my text I did not state that the Apostles' Creed does affirm the divinity of Jesus: all I said was that the most that can be said (i.e. claimed) about it is that the idea of the divinity of Jesus is implicit in it.