In the Wikipedia, it says that, when calculating the Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (sound horizon), we measure $150\text{ Mpc}$, saying that the sound horizon is the "Physical Length of sound horizon at today". Then it says that, when correcting for expansion, the physical length must be calculated by:
x(physical length of sound horizon) = a(scale factor) * X(comoving distance of sound horizon at drag epoch) 150Mpc(today)=1*150
(I just copied Wikipedia's text, that's why I don't format it). I have two doubts. The first one is, which os those distances is the one you measure, the $150\text{ Mpc}$?
The second one, why is the comoving distance of sound horizon set to $1$? I see it multiplies three terms. Is that right? So if I were to calculate the angular distance in the sky those oscillations have, I should do $\theta = \frac{150}{d_A}$, being $d_A$ the angular distance of the redshift at which we see it? $d_A=r/(1+z)$, being $r$ the distance.
Am I right there?
EDIT: In view of the poor quality of that wikipedia section (mentioned by @ChrisWhite), I will rephrase the question independently of that section.
We know the BAO oscillations for the sound horizon happen at about $150\text{ Mpc}$. Given that, if I want to calculate the angle in the sky that covers, and if those oscillations are known to be given at a redshift $z$, then, which would be the proper way to calculate that angle?
I know it must be:
$$\theta \approx = \frac{d}{d_A}$$
Where $d_A$ is the angular distance, that can be calculated via $d_A=\frac{1}{1+z}\int_0^z \frac{dz'}{H(z')}$, begin $H(z')$ the inverse Hubble radio at that given redshift. My doubt is whether I should use $d=150Mpc$, or if I should multiply that with the scale factor $a$ to transform it into a physical distance.