Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Distinguished Warfare Medal


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


 * Not promoted. There seems to be an agreement that it's best to wait and see with this one. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Distinguished Warfare Medal

 * Nominator(s): Casprings (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because one it is a very interesting award. I think this might be the first award globally for cyber warfare. Second, it is a pretty high in the order of precedence, which is also interesting, given it is for cyber warfare. That is why I was interested in the article. When I came to the article, I thought it was already at WP:GA. So I put it in for that. Once passed, my only edit was to change the citation style to Template:R. That said, I am interested in getting this to WP:FA, and this is the next logical step. Thanks in advance for looking at this. Casprings (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment/thought bubble Given that this medal was only introduced a few weeks ago, the criteria to be used to assess nominations are yet to be finalised and its place in the order of precedence may change, is this nomination premature given that the article is certain to change significantly over coming months? The article appears to be in very good shape given the newness of its topic, though I'd suggest adding a section on the background to why this medal was introduced (eg, the view that there was not a prestigious medal for the people who fight wars remotely, despite the increasing importance of this aspect of warfare). Nick-D (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You are right, I think. The Congress needs to pass or not pass the bills and DOD needs to publish guidelines for when to give the award.  So the article will change somewhat.    Perhaps this is to early.  I just think it is one of the more interesting medal articles.  Casprings (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's revisit this in two or three months, and watch it for signs of vandalism. Overtime we can neutrally and verifiable integrate new content into the article, while keeping the quality that is currently present.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend a slight pause - reviewing for ACR might be a bit early, for the reasons above. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.