Wikipedia:Peer review/William de Chesney/archive1

William de Chesney

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I'd like to possibly take it to FAC at some point, and would like advice on comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and prose from folks not conversant with the subject matter.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: A warm welcome to another shadowy figure from the past, who but for Ealdgyth's delvings would probably be quite unremembered. A few issues (with assistance from my history books):-

• Avoid "...as well. As well..."
• "The elder Chesney probably originated near Quesney-Guesnon in the Calvados region of Normandy, and was a tenant of Robert d'Oilly at the time of the Domesday Survey". This is a little telescopic, and could perhaps be expanded. In my view, families rather than individuals "originate". Where was Roger a tenant of d'Oilly at the time of the Domesday survey? Do we know, even roughly, when Roger or his family came to England? Was it with the Conquest?
• "the others" rather than "the rest", I think (people, not objects)
• "King Henry's only legitimate son, William, had died in 1120." Henry of Huntingdon refers to "the king's two sons, William and Richard", in relation to the sinking of The White Ship. Was Richard not legit?
• The sentence beginning "Matilda, though..." is long and convoluted, and could do with a split somewhere. The "though" has the faintest tang of POV.
• "which he acquired at least by 1157" → "which he had acquired at least by 1157"
• "Some historians have seen this holding of the lands as Stephen actually giving Chesney the d'Oilly barony, but the evidence for this is the fact that Chesney eventually owned a manor that had previously been owned by d'Oilly, which does not necessarily mean that Chesney received the whole barony." I find this sentence a bit repetitive and with unnecessary verbiage, e.g. "actually", "the fact", etc. I would try something like "Some historians have seen this holding of the lands as Stephen giving Chesney the d'Oilly barony, but the evidence for this is merely that Chesney eventually owned a manor previously belonging to d'Oilly, rather than that he received the whole barony."
• "Far more likely is that..." → "It is far more likely that..."
• "are known to have been owned Chesney..." Presumably, "by Chesney"? And can we avoid the close repetition of "held" immediately thereafter?
• "Some historians hold that Chesney held the office of Sheriff of Oxfordshire,[4] but others do not."[14] Surely, if only "some" historians believe he held this office it is implicit that some believe otherwise? To avoid this kind of awkwardness, it may be wise to rephrase the whole thing: "Historians are divided in their views as to whether Chesney held the office of Sheriff of Oxfordshire", followed by both refs.
• "...and may have been a brother of William's." I'd say simply "brother of William" as the more usual form. Lose the comma afer "Robert de Chesney"
• "Part of the Treaty of Wallingford, the peace settlement between Stephen and Henry that gave Henry the English throne after Stephen's death, concerned who would control Oxford Castle, which by the terms of the treaty was entrusted to Roger de Bussy." A little too much information for a single sentence, and again, somewhat repetitious phrasing. I would suggest something along the lines: "The subsequent peace settlement, the Treaty of Wallingford, gave Henry the English throne after Stephen's death. A part of the treaty awarded control of Oxford Castle to Roger de Bussy".
• "He continued to receive favours from the king, such as the exemption he received for payment of danegeld..." Suggest: "such as exemption for payment..." etc
• Nothing about his death, although you give a date in the lead. You need a sentence, even if it only says something like: "Chesney is believed to have died in 1161, [cite source] though the circumstances are not known".

That's it. As I am unable to watch individual peer review pages, please ping my talkpage if you have problems arising from this review, or if you want me to look at it again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

I fulfil your requirement for someone "not conversant with the subject matter". All I know of this period is from 1066 and All That and Brother Cadfael. These few comments are made in all due ignorance, therefore.

• "originated" – not clear what this means. A family can originate, but for a person might "was born" be clearer?
• "which he acquired at least by 1157" – at the latest, rather than least?
• This is probably a silly question, but does a name (d'Oilly) beginning with a lower case letter still stay lower cased when it opens a sentence? I don't think I'd start a sentence with "de Gaulle" rather than "De Gaulle". I merely ask, having really no notion of the correct form in mediaeval cases.
• "as Stephen actually giving Chesney" – a gerund, "Stephen's", would be preferable here.
• "before such honorific" – this looks odd, to my eye, without an indefinite article
• "behavior" – in an otherwise UK English article this ought to be "behaviour" (to match "favour" just below it)
• "son Henry's cause.." – duplicated full stop
• "After Henry's ascension to the throne" – in genuine ignorance, I find this an odd word; "ascent" would seem more natural to me, but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
• "his niece Matilda, who King Henry II married" – "whom" rather than "who"

I enjoyed this article, and though as a complete layman I cannot comment on its comprehensiveness, I must say that it looks pretty comprehensive to me, except, as Brianboulton says above, that we don't get anything much about Chesney's death, though I'm sure you'd have added it were it known. — Tim riley (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. I should be able to get to these this week, I hope. Very helpful! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)