Talk:Sweep theory

	Physics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

Merge with Swept wing

This article is mostly an explanation of sweep theory without mentioning examples of aircraft. It covers the same science though as swept wing. These are the same topic at heart, and this article's content would appropirately fit as a section in swept wing ✈ James C. (talk) 01:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with this proposed merge. Sweep theory has absolutely no application beyond the analysis of swept wings. I don't think it deserves an article of it's own. Alphanumeric Sheep Pig (talk) 12:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality

Although I have no special knowledge of fluid dynamics, I am a physicist and would thus expect myself to comprehend an article in this field in a general audience encyclopedia. However, I am just unable to understand what a sentence like "The resulting air pressure distribution is equivalent to the length of the wing's chord" is supposed to tell me, as a length and a distribution are entities of entirely different nature. In general I found the swept wing article much more helpful to understand the subject, with this article adding little to nothing on top. 2.28.219.128 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is very valid. In the discussion threads above, and also at the head of the article itself, there is the proposal that the content of this article should be merged with Swept wing. Unfortunately those threads have gone cold over the last couple of years so I guess whoever proposed merging is no longer watching. I will look at it over the next week. Dolphin (t) 13:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After reading a bit into the subject, I found the most useful part of this article to be the entries from the (incorrectly titled) "references" section. I've added them to the swept wing article as well. 2.28.219.128 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]