Template:Did you know nominations/Miller Arnold case

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Miller Arnold case

(

)

... that Frederick the Great personally convicted six judges for their involvement in the Miller Arnold case and sentenced them to a custodial penalty?
Source: https://www.berlin.de/gerichte/kammergericht/das-gericht/jubilaeumsschrift-500-jahre-kammergericht.pdf [in German p. 27]
Source: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:bvb:355-ubr12229-4#0390 [in German p. 66 and 67]
- ALT1: ... that Catherine the Great called Frederick the Great "Solomon of the North" for his personal interventions in the Miller Arnold case?
- Source: https://www.berlin.de/gerichte/kammergericht/das-gericht/jubilaeumsschrift-500-jahre-kammergericht.pdf [in German, p. 27]
- Source: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43127837 [in German, p. 163]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/John Allen Lewis

Moved to mainspace by WatkynBassett (talk). Self-nominated at 19:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @WatkynBassett: I normally don't contribute to Wikipedia in relation to legal topics. But as I am a lawyer who can speak German, it seemed appropriate that I review this nomination, especially as the new article appeared to be about a very interesting topic. I prefer the first hook, as what it says is truly bizarre to a lawyer accustomed to the now well accepted doctrine of judicial independence, whereas the second hook is a little obscure. As usual, I have carried out some minor copyediting as well as the review. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bahnfrend: Many thanks for your kind words and especially for improving the sometimes bumpy prose of the article. I appreciate it! WatkynBassett (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)