Talk:William de Chesney (sheriff)

William de Chesney (sheriff) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 11, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 27, 2012.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the medieval Anglo-Norman nobleman William de Chesney took the surname of his mother's family, as did his paternal half-brother Simon, even though Simon wasn't related to that family?

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

DYK nom[edit]

"Jews"[edit]

"At his death, de Chesney had outstanding debts, both to the government and to Jews. In 1214, his daughter Margaret was exempted from repaying any of her father's debts to Jewish moneylenders by a royal grant."

Is the fact that these moneylenders were Jewish relevant here? Totorotroll (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because likely his daughter would not have been exempted from repayment to non-Jewish moneylenders. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William de Chesney (sheriff)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) 03:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will review, comments to follow within a few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm just going to write out all the comments I came up with when reading the article--not going to bother with the GA checklist or anything. Here are a few comments to start, will add more later.

"In 1153 or 1154, Chesney was the recipient of the lordship of a hundred and a half in Norfolk, possibly in compensation for the loss of the manor of Mileham, which may have been restored to another noble family, the fitzAlans, as part of the settlement resulting from the Treaty of Wallingford which settled the civil war in England." This is a fairly long sentence, might want to break it up a bit.

"The next son, John, inherited the family lands, but died around 1149 and William inherited from John,[2] who had no children." I'd try to keep the two parts about John together, instead of going John William John.

"At his death, Chesney had outstanding debts, both to the king and to the Jews." This is the first we've heard of the Jews here, might want to add a few words of explanation, at least move "Jewish moneylenders" to this sentence. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Besides Blythburgh, Chesney also acquired lands in Norfolk and Essex in addition to the family lands in Norfolk and Suffolk." This sentence reads a little awkwardly to me.
"The same documents record him as holding the office of Sheriff of Suffolk at the same times." Is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "same" here?
"He held both offices again between 1156 and 1163." I assume this is better documented than the earlier term?
"Clemence married Jordan de Sackville and Sara married Richard Engaine." Should there be a comma here?
I notice you're using the date comma, (i.e. In 1214,) is that intentional?
Some of the article is a little confusing if you're not familiar with the time period, I guess there's only so much you can do about that though. I'd consider adding an explanation of Knight's fee and Hundred (county subdivision).
"Chesney needs to be distinguished from another William de Chesney" Is "needs to be" the best way to say this? It sounds a bit odd to me.
Alright, I haven't come up with much to say about this, looks like a fine article--good work! Mark Arsten (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I think I've addressed all of these, thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]