# Talk:William de Chesney (sheriff)

"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)

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

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)

Will review, comments to follow within a few days. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
"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)
I think I've addressed all of these, thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)