Talk:Distinguished Warfare Medal

Precedence?

The current InfoBox says the new medal ranks just above the Soldier's Medal (and its non-Army equivalents), but the article states it is ranked just above the Bronze Star. Unless I mistake the meaning of the InfoBox text, this is contradictory. I do see that there may be confusion (such as mine) when it is not made clear that the Soldier's Medal is a non-combat award which outranks the Bronze Star. Cyberherbalist (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I just deleted the line from the intro section about precedence. The medal is to sit directly beneath the DFC, which itself is (was) directly above the Airman's/Soldier's/etc. medals, which are directly above the Bronze Star. The line was redundant anyways, if the info is there in the box. The confusion arises, I think, by articles that talk about how the medal will outrank the Bronze Star, but don't say by how much. Zoke (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why they award this medal. Wouldn't an Achievement Medal or maybe a Commendation Medal (under very rare circumstances) be enough to land a damaged drone? I am just trying to understand, not wanting to start an argument.ScaryT (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Ostensibly, for single acts of drone warfare excellence that deserve recognition, i.e. outstanding support when performance is crucial. Any speculation as to the actual reason is left to one's own discretion. Zoke (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to get into forum-like discussion of the subject. Regardless of our personal views of the topic, we are to edit it neutrally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dodgy claims removed

I've just removed some rather dubious claims - this material was removed as the source stated it was referring to unnamed people commentating on the internet, not all of whom apparently disproved as the wording implied - random comments from the internet are not notable source of commentary. I also removed the sweeping claim that the medal's placement in the order of precedence "drew wide complaints from military members as well as confusion from military medals experts" as it is not supported by any citation - the article quotes the heads of two veterans organisations as complaining about this, but not any experts or serving military personnel as claimed. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Although a would have sufficed for the latter. Zoke (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Distinguished Warfare Medal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I will review this one. ★★RetroLord★★ 10:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I've done a quick review and pointed out everything I can see so far, once we deal with this there shouldnt be too much more to worry about. Thanks ! ★★RetroLord★★ 05:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those things up! Assuming I don't find anything else, i'll pass this one later today, thanks for nominating ★★RetroLord★★ 23:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	" Navy Lieutenant Commander Nate Christensen, Pentagon spokesman " This seems a bit convoluted, do you think we could shorten this somehow?  Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I think the controversy section should be named differently. It incorporates both critiscm and praise for the medal, so perhaps we could change it to "reception"? As it stands, it is also slightly biased against the subject, labelling it all "controversy".  Done
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	"The wreath honors the recipient's significant meritorious achievement to battlefield operations." Is this paragraph a direct quotation? If so, could you please put some quotation marks around it to show this?  Done
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	PASS! Congratulations.

• 1a. Reworked from "Navy Lieutenant Commander Nate Christensen, Pentagon spokesman," to "Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant Commander Nate Christensen,"
• 1b. Renamed as suggested to "Reception"
• 2b. This paragraph is in a block quote. At WP:Blockquote it says not to use quotation marks.

Thanks for undertaking this GA review. EricSerge (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Legislative update

Some lawmakers are introducing legislation to demote the medal in precedence. The source and the subjects are notable, so I'd think this would be pretty necessary to include before the article becomes a GA. [1] [2] —Ed!^(talk) 12:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Done.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Better-Detailed Picture

I would love to use this image to replace the current infobox picture, but I haven't been able to find a source of it. The few places that I've seen it with listed attribution say it's from the DoD, but I can't find it in their archives. Can someone help me track down where it's from so we can see if we can put it up at the top? Most of the American medals I've seen here on Wikipedia are of the higher-detail kind, so I'd like to keep the conformity. Zoke (talk) 16:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you can find the original image that the DoD produced, it's main source, I don't see why you cannot upload it over the current image at WikiCommons.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's the problem, I can't find the image anywhere on DoD's website, or even an original source. Looks like it probably came from a Military Times article at some point, but I can't confirm that. Would like some help from someone with more experience with images in resolving this, if possible. Zoke (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Canceling of DWM

Looks like Chuck Hagel is canceling the DWM. [3]. It will become a "distinguishing device" to attach to previously awarded medals. This raises the question of what to do with this article. – S. Rich (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we should leave it. I think that it's still notable, probably even moreso now since it is being cancelled so soon after it was created.— -dainomite   23:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Later create a new article for the DW "device" and a dab for the two. Then (the Medals Projects people can) add info about the device to the various other articles. The devise itself will probably have to be vetted through Institute of Heraldry. – S. Rich (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You can't really stop meeting the WP:GNG once you've met it. (WP:NTEMP) I agree with the above; we keep it and link it later. This was an interesting ride. Deadbeef (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)