Talk:Reference dimension

Review by Wabbott9
Per your Request for Feedback I'm not an engineer, so hopefully I can give you some feedback on readability. It looks ok, but it's quite as clear as I would like. Something that would make it clearer would be a concrete example of a reference dimension on an engineering document, possibly in an image, if that's possible. You should be able to upload one you create, though take a look at the Image Use Policy just to be safe. Wabbott9 (talk) 01:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Also useful would be a discussion of why a reference dimension is not used for manufacturing.Wabbott9 (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a topic notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. However, There are other readability issues that need addressing: in your first sentence, you say "reference only". Reference only, rather than what? Specify what else you would use a dimension for. It is sort-of explained later, but needs clarification. Furthermore, the example you give of a reference dimension is excessive - its pretty obvious what (in parenheses) means. Like Wabbott9 said, it needs a picture. Try to get a portion of a draft of something that includes both a reference dimension and a normal dimension with tolerances. Don't put too much information in it. Quinxorin (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)