Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Airman Basic

Airman Basic

I recently re-built this article with complete sourcing as it previously has none. I'd like to build it up/clean it up, but don't really know where to go from here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford

I like the idea of the article; maybe because I was once in AFJROTC. Two quibbles:

What does an AB actually do? They obviously don't fly the planes. If just grunt work, what kind, as obviously it can't be too technical.
Back when I was in AFJROTC, we were told that having three years in allowed us to skip a few ranks. Is that still the case? Might be worth mentioning?
How does AB compare to similar E-1s in other countries' air forces?

Hope this helps.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 12:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, that's three quibbles. ;^)

A previous iteration of the article talked about the expectations and duties of an AB, but I removed it as unsourced. Previously it said
Airmen Basic are generally those currently in their initial training status, either in Basic Military Training (BMT) or attending their technical training school, adapting to the requirements of military life, acquiring knowledge of military customs and courtesies, learning to adhere to Air Force standards and guidelines, and striving to attain technical competency in their Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC). If holding the rank of Airman Basic at their first permanent duty station, they are capable of performing basic tasks under OJT or close supervision.
Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? I'll look more into depth for that sort of stuff if it is.
That's true; I completed three years of AJROTC and put on my first stripe right out of BMT. Is that pertinent? Maybe? I'll look more into the sourcing available and get back to that.
Hrm. This could be most difficult to source, to find information about other militaries' enlisted ranks and the duties and expectations thereof. I'll definitely look into it though, thanks!

Much appreciation for your input, Bedford! If you can think of anything else, I'd love to have more! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woody

A good start, it is a solid base. It is unlucky that I can't give you a good example to follow as I couldn't find one that has already been developed. So, you are a trail-blazer. So, onto the comments:

MOS suggestions

Perhaps link E-1 in the Lead
The MOS/WP:LAYOUT dictates to us mortals that ==See also== goes above == notes and references.==
Make sure your dates are consistent, some are linked, some aren't.

Areas for expansion

I would have a section on responsibilities, what are the jobs that they typically do? Are there any specialisations?
How have these changed over time, if anything?
I would have a section on comparisons with other foreign E-1s. Are there any variations in responsibilities.?
Where are they accomodated? On base? Barracks etc?
Is there anymore on the history. What were the recommendations from the "studies made in 1950 and 1951." You could expand on the reasoning behind the creation of the ranks.

So, a few areas to improve. If you have any questions, you can leave them here or on my talkpage. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was hoping to find a shining example for wherefrom to proceed; that's actually why I brought it to this review to get input on the previously unexplored territory.

E-1 is just a (poor) disambiguation page, ultimately incorrectly linking to the Army's rank as its meaning. I might expound more on the connection to the NATO ranking structure that it's tied into, especially with regard to the above comment about other militaries.
Does it? Done. I should probably comprehensively read the MoS someday. Not today though.
I think they should all be de-linked unless following the link to that specific date can be important to the context. I've been counseled on that before. Done.
As above, I'll look more into sources and see if I can either (a) source what was there before or (b) build something new with what sources I can find.
Yikes! Maybe, although that seems to be somewhat hopeful on my part to find. I'll look into it though.
See above, will look into.
Ooh, that's good. Should be easy enough to source & cite; thanks.
I only have one source for the history of enlisted ranks right now, so will look into more to see if I can better flesh out that information. Thanks.

Thanks for the great input, Woody! If you can think of anything else, please feel free to lay it on me! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Borg Sphere

This article has promise, and is very interesting. A few suggestions below; I'll try not to repeat what was said above.

More on the duties of the rank. What is this rank for? Why have it?
You may wish to move the style of address out of the lead, this doesn't seem like something to go in there.
In 1959 why was the name change?
Why did the studies recommend changing the name? Expand on the results of them.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but why is the promotion blocked unless the commanding officer recommends it, but is always made once the people who enlisted for six years have completed the training course? That seems self-contradictory to me, but again, I may very well be confused and misreading it.
It might be interesting to note why they have no rank insignia, when Seaman Recruit and Private (rank) both wear one.

Otherwise it looks pretty good, good luck improving it. Borg Sphere (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would sort of traipse more into the history of the E-1 in general, which I don't think I want to get too into here. Maybe just a "here's where it came from" with a wikilink to a more in-depth historical look at American enlisted ranks?
I may, and I've thought the same, although I don't think there's anywhere it would fit well at this time. After some expansion as suggested in this review, I think I'll have someplace better for it to go.
... I don't know. /me checks. My source doesn't say, so I'll just have to flounder on that point and see if I can find out.
I'll try to find that information. I can opine if you're personally curious, though. :^)
I tried to clarify it; all promotions require the signature, the exceptions are only as to how long AB is worn before promotion is eligible.
I think that's a mistake on your part; all US military E-1s have no rank insignia. (a) The Army has two "Private" ranks, only the E-2 wears the single chevron. (b) The Coast Guard wears the single stripe Seaman Recruit rank, but the Navy does not.

Thanks for the compliment! I really appreciate your input and if you have more, I'm happy to hear it! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]