Talk:Air Battle Manager

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Air Battle Manager article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Aviation / North America / United States C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Untitled

This article needs references. Could the original author please go back through and cite his sources, or if it is from personal knowledge, at least acknowledge it?

Spaceman3750 (talk) 06:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaceman3750: I have added citations and updated the page significantly. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jargon

This article makes extensive use of "insider" terminology and concepts, so that much of it is difficult for a non-expert to follow. It is also written with a very strong US orientation; a more international perspective would be more fitting. Davidhof (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidhof: I have reduced much of the content of this page to less detailed descriptions that should be easier to read. However, as an Air Battle Manager, I may be biased as to what is too technical. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: It is much more readable now, and has good references, so I removed the templates. There is still room for improvement. Suppose that your intelligent and capable 13-year-old niece or nephew, who knows nothing about military matters, said to you, “Uncle Balon, I think I might want to be an Air Battle Manager when I grow up. It sounds cool. But even after reading the article about them in Wikipedia, I’m still not 100% clear on how you become one, and what sorts of things you actually do on a typical day once you are one.” What additional information would you try to provide in your answer? Then, how could that information be added to the article, while maintaining a nontechnical encyclopedic style? If you can think of good answers, the article could be made better still by incorporating the result. Davidhof (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidhof: I'll get to work on improving the article. The only issue I see is that most of my knowledge would be counted as original research, and there isn't much published material to cite. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of jargon and citations banner

As the body of the article has been drastically reduced, and numerous citations were added, I propose removing their banners. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I took them out. Davidhof (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]