Talk:Preußisches Obertribunal

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 AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that it has been argued that hardly any decision has stirred the discussion of German criminal law scholarship more than an over 150-year-old case of the Preußisches Obertribunal? Source: Haft, Fritjof; Eisele, Jörg (2003). "Wie wirkt sich ein error in persona des Haupttäters auf den Gehilfen aus?". Gedächtnisschrift für Rolf Keller (in German). Mohr Siebeck. pp. 81–101. ISBN 9783161477508.
  • Reviewed: Will review Template:Did you know nominations/Ema Zajmović (ongoing) done

Moved to mainspace by WatkynBassett (talk). Self-nominated at 18:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Preußisches Obertribunal; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

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: - Not done
Overall: @WatkynBassett: Good article. Agf on german sources. waiting on qpq. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• @Onegreatjoke: Thanks a lot for reviewing this so quickly! I provided the missing QPQ. WatkynBassett (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

WatkynBassett could you please provide a relevant quote from the German source? I think the hook needs trimming a bit for reader impact but I don't want to misrepresent what the source says. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29:The relevant quote is: Es handelt sich um einen Beitrag zu der berühmten "Rose-Rosahl" Entscheidung des Preußischen Obertribunals aus dem Jahre 1859. Kaum eine Entscheidung hat die strafrechtswissenschaftliche Diskussion so sehr bewegt wie diese, die sich mit der Frage zu beschäftigen hatte, wie sich ein error in persona des Angestifteten auf die Strafbarkeit des Anstifters auswirkt:. Hope this helps to get this hook promoted! WatkynBassett (talk) 20:54, 12 July 2023 (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:Preußisches Obertribunal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WatkynBassett (talk · contribs) 06:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Kimikel (talk · contribs) 16:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I will be reviewing this article as part of the January GAN drive. Please expect comments from me within the next few days. Kimikel (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett: I've completed my inital review. Please review my suggestions and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you! Kimikel (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kimikel: Many thanks for your brilliant review and your valuable time spent on this. I hope, I adressed all your questions and issues below with one exception: I have no idea what I have to do to fix the incorrectly tagged image. WatkynBassett (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett: Thank you for your expedience and your quality work; this article was an interesting read. I've fixed the image, but I'll explain what I did for future reference: the uploader incorrectly uploaded the picture under an "own work" tag when it should have been under a public domain tag, as the painter died 100+ years ago. To fix this, I went to the file on Wikimedia, hit "edit" in the top right, and then replaced "self|cc-by-sa-3.0" with "PD-art|PD-old-100-expired" for the licensing. Regardless, I appreciate the work you put in and I'm ready to promote this article. Thank you and congratulations! Kimikel (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Well-written

• To me, the italicization of all of the courts' names throughout the article is unnecessary. I believe this covered by the "organizations" mentioned in MOS:FOREIGN. I feel like the article would look a little nicer without all the italics.
  • I am not very familiar with the rules on italicizations and gladly defer to you. I edited the article accordingly.

Lead

• abbreviated PrObTr > I don't think the abbr template is needed since the full name is right there to the left
  • I always try to err on the side of caution with abbreviations. So, if you do not mind, I would like to keep the template.
• Reichsgericht—then the sole > Reichsgericht, which became the sole
  • Done.

History

• which had been granted by Leopold I > which Leopold I had granted
  • Done.
• In 1716... > I would merge this sentence with one of the other paragraphs so there's not just a floating standalone sentence
  • Done.
• in Berlin (except the Geheimer Justizrat [the Secret Judicial Council] and the Ravensburger Appellationsgericht [the Ravensburg Court of Appeals]) > recommend commas instead of parentheses
  • Good idea, done.
• with a view to form > with the goal of forming
  • Done.
• The Secret Supreme Tribunal... > recommend merging for same reason as above
  • Done.
• The area of French law > uncapitalize "the"
  • Done.
• was, however, fortified once more: Due > was fortified once more. Due
  • Done.
• (re-)gained > regained
  • Done.
• civil disputes whose subject-matter reached the amount of the appeal. > Maybe it's just me but this sentence seems unclear, could you explain what this means?
  • I tried a different phrasing: Please check if this is any clearer: "Due to an ordinance dated 14 December 1833, it regained the sole responsibility to decide certain nullity appeals () and appeals on points of law () in civil disputes if the amount of the action in question reached the sum necessary for appeal."
• (in its capacity as Geheimer Justizrat) > remove parentheses
  • Done.
• inter alia > among other things
  • Done.
• court – again named Obertribunal > court, again named Obertribunal.
  • Done.
• This new court was, however, short-lived > This new court was short-lived
  • Done.
• On 30 September 1879... > merge with previous paragraph
  • Done.
• Reichsjustizgesetze [de] > a brief description of what the Reichsjustizgesetze were would be helpful
  • Done, please check if this is sufficient.

Collection and publication of decision

• (because the court had no competencies for criminal law) > remove parentheses
  • Done.
• subject-matter remove hyphen
  • Not done: Wikipedia likes to use this hyphen (Subject-matter jurisdiction).
• (German) criminal law scholarship> remove parentheses
  • Done.
• In the PrObTrE approximately 500 of the courts > In the PrObTre, approximately 500 of the court's
  • Done.

Verifiability

• Note θ is uncited
  • Fixed.
• Translations of the titles of German sources would be helpful
  • Done.

Spot check

• 20b: Verified
• 35: Verified
• 56: Verified, although von Uhden's part of the table should say "(his death)" like von Koenen's
  • Done
• 2: Verified
• 28: verified

Broadness

• Of its criminal cases, the 1859 Rose-Rosahl case [de] (PrObTrE 42, 36) concerning the interplay of error in persona [de] and incitement – and factually the accidental murder of a 17 year old student – is especially famous.[27] According to the German legal scholars Fritjof Haft [de] and Jörg Eisele [de], hardly any other decision has influenced the discussion of (German) criminal law scholarship more than this decision by the Tribunal.[28] > Well, what was their decision?
  • That is very valid criticism. I added the gist of the decision and a citation.
• If they have any other notable decisions, that would also be an excellent thing to include.
  • After such a long time since the end of Prussia and its supreme court, I personally know of no other famous decision. The German Wikipedia article also only lists the Rose-Rosahl case. The Dictionary of German Legal History lists no cases at all. So unfortuneatly, we will have to wait for future scholarship on the court's jurisprudence.

Neutrality and stability

• No issues

Illustration

• File:Samuel von Cocceji by Anna Rosina de Gasc 1737.PNG is incorrectly tagged (should be public domain, author died 100+ years ago)
  • I have no real experience with commons. What do I have to do here (or could you even be so kind to change this yourself)?
• Everything else checks out

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.