it isn't about dumbing down it's about the use of unambiguous language the articles linked to by phenomena and artefact still leave the meanings of those words ambiguous we don't have to stick religiously to the words used in the literature particularly if like with these they are ambiguous in english we should paraphrase if we need to especially if it is a literal rather than a meaning translation from french as much of this appears to be i think we need to forge a compromise between what is there now and something easier to grasp the true meaning of i'll offer the following as a starter in this spirit manufacturable and repeatable standards example physical standards of the base units used in the metric system capable of being accurately manufactured known as realisable by the bipm ideally with reference to naturally occurring stable physical constants or phenomena rather than to a single existing physical object or artefacts the bipm publish a set of instructions for how to manufacture a reference standard for each of the base units this is known as a mise en pratique in french the primary language of the bipm where practical at the time the definitions of the base units were developed so that a suitably equipped laboratory would be able to construct an acceptably accurate reference standard without the need to compare it with an existing physical object which may not be available locally in practice such such realisation is done under the auspices of what is known as a mutual acceptance arrangement maa please discuss