Template:Did you know nominations/Crawfurd v The Royal Bank
- 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 SL93 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Crawfurd v The Royal Bank
- ... that Crawfurd v The Royal Bank established that a bona fide recipient of stolen banknotes cannot be forced to return them to their original owner? Source: [1]
- ALT1: ... that Crawfurd v The Royal Bank (1749) established in Scots law that a bona fide recipient of stolen banknotes cannot be forced to return them to their original owner? Source: [2]
- Reviewed: Concerto for Two Cellos, RV 531
Created by King of Hearts (talk). Self-nominated at 03:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC).
Hi King of Hearts, review follows: article created 4 September and exceeds minimum length; it is well written and cited inline throughout to what appear to be reliable sources; I found no evidence of overly close paraphrasing from Reid (the main source); hook fact is mentioned in the article and checks out to the source cited; a QPQ has been carried out. I just wonder if the hook would be better if it mentioned the year of the judgement and the fact that it was in Scots law? - Dumelow (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
