Talk:Crawfurd v The Royal Bank

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Numismatics: British currency Low‑importance

	Numismatics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British currency task force.

Scotland Low‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Crawfurd v The Royal Bank appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 September 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... 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?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/September. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crawfurd v The Royal Bank.

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination[edit]

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)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... 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).[reply]

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)[reply]

@Dumelow: Updated. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both hooks approved, though I prefer the one with more context - Dumelow (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consummable[edit]

Is "consummable" a typo for "consumable", or does it have a separate meaning? 2600:1003:B85B:BAE1:708D:BEFB:A176:8794 (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]