Talk:Furtum

Odd Phrase in Applicable Actions

The article contains the following text, under Applicable Actions:

There were several possible actions available to the claimant. In the typical theft, the damages were a multiple of the value of the thing stolen.[16] A subsequent rise in the value of the thing stolen whilst the claim was being brought was borne by the defendent, if found liable.[21] If the claimant had an interest short of ownership, then the value of that interest formed the basis for the damages instead.[22] An heir of the claimant could sue, but the heir of a thief was not liable.[23] If part of a thing was stolen, probably the value of that part. A successful action for theft brought with it infamia for the thief.[23] (emphasis added)

I thought at first that the sentence made no sense and that words had been omitted. After several readings, I think the sentence is trying to say that in the situation of only part of an item being stolen, the value of the damages would be based on the value of the stolen part. But the preceding sentences discusses who is liable, not damages. So the sentence comes off as odd and disconnected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.244.8 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 10:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Initial comments

By now I've done a very quick read of this nomination. It appears to be quite readable, of adequate scope and well referenced (but I've not yet checked any references), so my initial consideration is that the article could make GA status this time round. I'm now going to review it in more depth against WP:WIAGA. Pyrotec (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

On a self-analysis it's likely to be prose that needs fixing, which if you can identify any passages is something I can do. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just going to work my way down the article, but leaving the WP:Lead until the end. Pyrotec (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Contrectatio -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) - Merely a note in passing. My Latin dictionary gives Contrectō, -āre, āvī, -ātum as "to touch, to handle", so there is consistency. What is the -atio declension?

Well, it's correct; Wiktionary gives a result for the suffix and there are other words with it.

Thanks, I've never thought to look at wiktionary. Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) - The same paragraph states that: Contrectatio meant ... was established ... before the end of the republic (so, at the latest, before 27 BC). The next sentence states: "Furtum had before this required carrying away of a thing". The grammar of that sentence could do with some attention, its also rather vague about time ("before this").

Had another go.

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) - The following sentence: "There are several examples even in the later law where it is hard to find physical contact in any sense" (with citation), is explanation/expansion but is a bit vague about time ("later law"), can later be quantified (Roman Empire for instance)?

Changed.

•  Not done The above change introduced the term "classical Rome" and the next section (Requisite intent) has "classical period". Possibly they are the same, but as they are first occurrences, they (or one) perhaps need a wikilink.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC) - In the second paragraph, the link Labeo leads to an article on Carp - not, I suspect, the intended link.

Corrected. Happy to revisit any of this if it still isn't clear. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Requisite intent -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• (Marker ...to be consider later, or removed).
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - On its own the meaning of the second sentence in the first paragraph is not too clear. However, from a reading of the third sentence, the second sentence possible means to say (my words): "The act had to be against the will of the owner, and believed to be so by the prospective thief".
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - In the second paragraph, there is a problem with "In a notable example, a man, acting dishonestly, calls a mule-driver to court frivolously, which causing the mules to be lost.". I think it should be "caused".
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - Also, should the be in the following sentence be "been"? There is no obvious intention to make a gain, but this was classed as theft: perhaps because if the mules were lost, they had necessarily be stolen by someone, and thus the perpetrator was an accomplice.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - There are two "it"s in the final sentence of this paragraph. I assume the first "it" is "Damnum iniuria datum" and the second "it" is "Furtum"; however "it" is used at the start of the paragraph to mean "intention to make a gain".
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - Its not clear whether the claim against the "dishonest man" was successful or not. Having now read two sections of this article, it could be construed that it was.

Reworded bits as required, generally more thoroughly reworded than you suggest for clarity. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Its much clearer now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Protected property -

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - This seems to be a section of two halves: its not clear to me why this title was chosen. The first paragraph is about "mobility of a thing" (my words) and the second is "who can sue" and the next section is Applicable actions, so presumably this section is discussing who can or can't claim "damages"?

I've changed it to "protected interests", discussing which interests and who had them. If there was more to say about them they could be two sections but the material just isn't there.

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - In the second paragraph there is a stray closing bracket after "negative interest"), or perhaps a missing opening bracket.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - The sentence: "The owner would have an action instead." probably needs an "If not,"... or similar.
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - "A depositee could not be sued by a depositor, and so had no action available for furtum": - a explanation is need as to why this is so (or claimed)?
• Y Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC) - "A vendor, who had agreed a price but not delivered his thing, retained ownership and his action, because he was so liable to the purchaser.[20]": - purchaser or potential purchaser, to me one has a potential loss but the other has an actual loose?

Fixed the bracket, reworded section. In particular I don't think you understood the point, but in any case I've reworded it so hopefully it's clear now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Its much clearer now. Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• Applicable actions -

• The first paragraph looks OK, as does the second.
• It's not clear as to what the first sentence of the third paragraph is referring to. It could be a run-on of the previous paragraph, which finishes on non-manifest theft, but the rest of the paragraph is concerned with manifest theft. "However" is not an expected start to a paragraph.
• I assume that action furti mentioned without further explanation in the forth paragraph is the action discussed in the first paragraph? Note: the three complementary actions - concepti, - prohibiti and - non exhibiti are explained.
• The wikilink reipersecutory goes to an article that appears not to exist, so clarification is needed.
• The technical term "in rem" needs a wikilink, a link to wiki dictionary (as appropriate) or an explanation of what it means.

• WP:Lead -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• This is intended to both introduce the topic and summarise the main points - which I believe, in general, that it does (but see below). It appears to me to summarise all four sections and there does not appear to be an extraneous material.
• Law is not my speciality, but I suspect that to be able to take an "action", it is necessary to have (or to show) both "Contrectatio" and "Requisite intent/intention". The lead discusses both (the lead uses r. - intention and the section tile r. - intent, but that is minor) but does not make it clear that both are necessary.

At this point I'm putting the review On Hold. Pyrotec (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait, all the above points should now be covered. (On images, below, I could only think of incidental ones, such as the Tarpeian rock. If you have any ideas, I will endeavour to find images of them.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Not applicable - no images.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Not applicable - no images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA status. Congratulations on achieving GA. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)