Talk:Miller Arnold case

Did you know nomination

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... 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)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Miller Arnold case/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WatkynBassett (talk · contribs) 08:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 1 October 2025 (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.	The decision by Frederick II has been published. and Again, this decision has been published. These sentences feel strangely tacked on the end of their paragraphs to me, I think it's because there seems to be an issue with the tense, or I may have misunderstood. Could ie be rephrased, removed or better integrated?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	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).	Source spot check completed and passed (using translation tools).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio detected
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.	Issues fixed and article ready to pass.

Comments

Beginning review. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett:I've completed my review and copyedit. A couple of notes in addition to the ones in the table above:

1. Images. I note this article currently has no images or media. This doesn't exclude it from becoming a good article, and I recognise this is a tricky subject to find media for, so I won't get hung up on this though it would be good to have an image.
2. Section calling the case an "affair". While this is technically correct, I find it reads a bit strangely. Perhaps this entire section could be called 'Legality' instead, or something similar, and the sub-section for legend scrapped (keep the content, just remove the sub-section header).

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding my notes here or in the table above. I'll place this on hold for one week to allow you to address these issues. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyRiver28 Thank you very much for your review, which I greatly appreciate. Unfortunately I am travelling at the moment, so I will probably only be able to address your issues on Monday. Sorry for that! WatkynBassett (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your patience! I hope that I have now addressed all of your points: I put the awkward sentences mentioned under 1a. in explanatory footnotes. I uploaded and added three images and I renamed the section formerly known as "affair". I kept, however, the "legend" subsection which I considered useful for the readers. Thanks again for your kind review! WatkynBassett (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding above GA review

Hi @SnowyRiver28:. I hope you're doing well and thank you for participating in the drive. I don't want to bother you but I find some of the boxes empty as you didn't mention your comment over there. You mention the overall comment in the last box at Overall assessment, which is excellent. But from next time please write your comment in every box whether it has issue or not. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought simply ticking each box indicated it had passed the test, but I can write ‘No issues here’ in each empty box if you’d prefer.

Not to be argumentative, just don’t see how it’s necessary for boxes such as ‘stable’ and ‘neutral’ as there’s very rarely anything to say other than ‘OK’ SnowyRiver28 (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)