Talk:Structural analysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've tried to create a first-pass page. I'll be working on it, but I welcome corrections and additions.

I have expanded the article a little bit, re-organized the presentation, and added the Time-line section, which, hopefully will be more complete. TVBZ28 20:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but the present article does not read well. Many places, especially the intro, are wordy, grammatically incorrect, pompous and just barely comprehensible to people who already know the subject material. Admin should revert back to an earlier version. TVBZ28 22:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. My intention was to simply to rephrase the introduction because it did not seem to be written by a native speaker of English. I tried to make it less complicated. However, structural analysis is not a very unified field. You will not find a college textbook on structural analysis that is not particular to a specific engineering task. The closest thing is a book on the mechanics of materials but this is hardly structural analysis. You will define it very differently depending on where in the industry you are working. I felt the definition was too specific to civil engineering as are several other articles related to it.

I do agree that it is still a mess. However, I don't agree that the article should be reverted. It needs to move forward not backwards. The English was wrong in the introduction and not concise. For example, the sentence "Structural analysis is very important study for structural engineers." is not informative (what does very important mean?) and is incorrect grammar. The next sentence has even worse grammar but at least it is meaningful. I think the first paragraph is the worst. The rest of the article isn't so bad. The bottom line is that I hope someone else can write something more readable since my wording is not satisfactory. Jebix 04:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)