Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DeLancey W. Gill/archive2

DeLancey W. Gill

 * Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

DeLancey Walker Gill is an interesting fellow. He was notable for his ink drawings and watercolors of D.C. in the late 19th century, and the absolutely massive catalogue of photographs he took of Native American delegations to D.C. in his work for the Smithsonian and Bureau of American Ethnology. Last year, I attempted this as my first FAC, back before I had really learned the ins and outs of writing articles to FA standards. Recently, I went back to the drawing board, and made all the fixes I could to satisfy the issues raised at the peer review and FAC: I hope it is to everyone's liking! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Ajpolino
A lovely read on a person I knew nothing about. Small comments: I'll return for another readthrough with fresh eyes. Thanks for the read. Ajpolino (talk)
 * "Gill's art... have been described" feels like singular/plural disagreement, unless there's something special about the word "art".
 * Oops, fixed! - G
 * "highly detailed", "highly meticulous", "highly distinct" - "highly" feels like a meaningless filler word here. Those adjectives are already strong on their own.
 * Good point, I'll remove these. - G
 * "brought a considerable amount of acclaim"
 * Good fix. - G
 * Bureau of American Ethnology is wikilinked twice a couple sentences apart.
 * Fixed. - G
 * "reviewing hundreds of thousands of copies of printed illustrations per year." I don't have access to the source, just checking in to make sure this is accurate. There's only a few hundred thousand waking minutes in a year, so it's a surprising number.
 * It's almost verbatim what the source says; I think this means watching the printing presses as they run rather then like, hand-expecting each individual issue. I rephrased this a little to make it less weird. - G
 * It's a bit surprising to hear that he becomes USGS "chief of illustration", then is assigned BAE (part of USGS, I gather?) "supervisor of illustration". Does the source clarify at all the difference between these positions?
 * I have no idea what the difference is, and I'm unsure if those are the official titles. Rephrased this, good point. - G
 * "Following Andrew John's death... to Bureau custody." feels like we're losing the thread of Gill's biography a bit here.
 * Yeah, good point; I tried to add more context but it waters down the prose.
 * "In one 1903 sitting, In one 1903 sitting," typo.
 * Fixed! I'm disappointed I missed this. - G
 * "From 1903-1905... photograph them." is this important to Gill's biography?
 * I think it's important context that he delegated his workload to another photographer. Tightened up the prose a bit. -G
 * "He also collected antiques, described as an expert..." reword. Reads as if "described as an expert..." is expanding on the word "antiques".
 * Good point, fixed. -G
 * "fracturing his skull after falling down a staircase at his home" I am always eyeing the wood stairs in my home with this exact scenario in mind. I will redouble my eyeing.
 * Ah, I realized I forgot to let people know when I had implemented the fixes. This stuff has been corrected! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , not to bug, but was just wondering if you had the chance to look over the fixes! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 02:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, my mistake! Will get back to this within the next day or two. Ajpolino (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to support this article for FA. An interesting and enjoyable read. Ajpolino (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Image review

 * Homestead sketch is missing alt text
 * Fixed. -G
 * File:Mr._De_Lanay_Gill,_Bureau_Am._Etymology_LCCN2016821491_(cropped).jpg: when and where was this first published and what is the author's date of death?
 * No date of publication, but it's in public domain as part of the Library of Congress' National Photo Company Collection, which is in the licensing of the image's page on Commons. -G
 * File:DeLancey_Gill,_Mouth_of_James_Creek.tif: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Pueblo_Bonito_Ruin,_Chaco_Canyon,_New_Mexico_SAAM-1955.9.4_1.jpg, File:Portrait_(Profile)_of_Samuel_Schanowa_in_Partial_Native_Dress_with_Ornaments_February_1905.jpg
 * I just slapped a PD-US-unpublished on these, since I don't have any specific evidence that any of them were published during Gill's lifetime. For the last one, I added PD-USGov-SI since it's part of the National Anthropological Archives. -G
 * File:DeLancey_W._Gill,_sketch_of_Washington_homestead.png needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Added. - Generalissima (talk) (it/she)

Airship
As always, these are suggestions, not demands; feel free to demur with justification. Just a few comments to start with:
 * The sectioning is a little odd: "Early life" combined with "painting career", but separated from "Photography", which has its own "reception" subsection whereas "early life and painting career" does not. FWIW, I would be inclined towards an all-encompassing "biography" or "life" section, with subsections of "painting", "photography" and "personal life", but that is a suggestion.
 * Yeah, sectioning is weird, and I was kinda unsure about what to do. I actually like your idea a lot better here; since the painting wasn't exclusively part of his early life. - G
 * I am always slightly suspicious of lengthy paragraphs depending on a single citation: in this article there are two (beginning and ), both cited to Glenn 1983.
 * The first is for some reason cited to the whole of Glenn's article, instead of the two starting pages it would appear to depend on? I find slightly ungrammatical, as well as . I also don't think that  is a full reflection of the source, or that Glenn explicitly says that Powell "assigned" Gill to supervise illustration for the BAE.
 * Ack, forgot to correct that sfn. Sadly, Glenn 1983 is just the only source which bothered to cover this period of Gill's life. You're right about those weird turns of phrases, corrected them. And fair enough on the second part, I took another crack at phrasing those. -G
 * The second paragraph is better, although it ends with the odd phrasing . Glenn p. 18 describes two cases of Gill photographing "show Indians": the Henry Hunt family, and the four Dakota, who are described earlier in the paragraph without reference to their "show" status.
 * Good catch there. Elaborated on the Dakota part and brought it to the end of the paragraph. -G

Apologies for the delay. More to come: &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * the positioning of File:DeLancey W. Gill, sketch of Washington homestead.png is a little odd, not only the centering, but that it might very well be the earliest image in the article, and yet comes third. Perhaps place it alongside Mouth of James Creek (multiple image?)
 * Ooh, yeah, good point. I added multiple image for James Creek/Pueblo Bonito and put the sketch by itself.
 * I'm unsure (perhaps as a non-American) what precisely "native delegations to Washington" means.
 * Clarified this a bit more. - G
 * You might want to join the paragraphs in "Photography" that don't focus on portraiture together ("In 1889, Gill discovered...", "He also accompanied Holmes...", "In addition to portraits..."), as the section currently feels a bit disjointed/unfocused.
 * Good idea. - G
 * In general, the second and third paragraphs of the "Photography" section feel a bit confused.
 * The tracing of the history of the BAE photographer position feels a bit irrelevant, Dinwiddie especially.
 * I was able to reduce this down a bit. - G
 * Did the portraiture of Native Americans solely consist of photographs of the "delegates"?
 * Yeah, except when in the field. Clarified. - G
 * "began in the 1860s and 1870s" sounds like it should use the pluperfect.
 * Done. - G
 * I don't know why the sentence about Hayden is relevant.
 * I was trying to give context, but you're right its not needed. - G
 * Presumably "the early course of Gill's photographic career" doesn't include the part before his 1898 appointment, but a less vague timeframe than "the early course" would be better.
 * Good point. - G
 * With the added context of a multiple-year-long period, I don't think "peaking in [a non-year-specific-season]" is the best choice of wording.
 * Fixed this up. - G


 * just checking in! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have time to review as in-depth as I would like, so I believe it is a weak support from me. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
Putting my name down for this later. I'll take the source review. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:09, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Source review
Alright, let's do this thing. Citation numbers from this revision.


 * Citations 4 and 5 can be merged as below.
 * Thank you! I didn't think to merge sfns like that. I will do this a lot going forward. - G
 * needs attribution to Goff. Also, citations 6 and 7 can be merged as.
 * Good point, fixed. - G
 * Why are Library of Congress citations are treated as web citations (access dates, archive links) while other newspaper citations aren't?
 * No clue, fixed this. -G
 * For the record, I did an IABot run to standardize the linking style across the board. —TS
 * Citation 9c doesn't seem to verify any of the preceding information.
 * Good catch, that's not needed there. - G
 * In citation 31: pp → p
 * Fixed. -G
 * Does Miller 1992 need an author-link to any of the entries at Cheryl Miller (disambiguation)?
 * Oh right, it's Cheryl D. Miller. - G
 * Actually, it very well could be that Cheryl D. Miller, but I can't be sure. Whoever this Cheryl Miller was is Curator of the Washington D.C. Historical Society in the early 90s, but from Miller's bio on here, she would have been in NYC at the time (and seemed to be focused on design rather than design history after college.) We might hilariously have two Cheryl Millers from D.C. who have both published on art and design history of the district in a roughly similar timeframe. - G
 * In Eldredge 1986: add Charles C. Eldredge
 * Thank you! -G
 * Only some of the book citations have locations, which make them look inconsistent. Unless we have locations for all of them, I'd recommend removing. At risk of becoming a broken record, I also think that locations have become rather unnecessary in the age of the Internet.
 * I like locations for that old style charm to them, so I added them into the other cites. - G

Now working from this revision.


 * Something's off with citation 23; my copy of the source doesn't exceed 22 pages.
 * Fixed! - G
 * Citation 26 needs an access-date, as it's an online source.
 * Fixed. - G
 * Fixed. - G
 * Also, the "" implies that the quote is an abridged version of a single statement, which the source doesn't support. Just using the quotes individually should be fine.
 * Good point, corrected. - G
 * Good point, corrected. - G

General comments
Let me know if you have any questions! Also, I'd love if you could drop some comments on my FAC, which is currently a bit light on reviews. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 06:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe my lack of familiarity with biographies is showing, but why are all the headers under a seemingly-redundant ?
 * I previously had this broken up as three first-level headers of Early life and painting career, Photography, and Personal life. Airship pointed out these weren't really necessary, especially cause his painting career didn't chronologically fit into a discrete section. Promoting the second level headers would unnecessarily break up the text - and thus, Biography. This is a common trick: sometimes you see it as "Adult life" when there's an easily splitable Early Life section, or a Career when it's that plus a personal life, but Gill's early life section would be like two sentences, so I just threw it all in together. - G
 * "" should be "" in running prose; this occurs in multiple places.
 * Ah right! Corrected. - G
 * "whiskey" is an excessive link.
 * Also corrected. - G
 * There are several sentences like "" and "" that come off as weaselly, especially when the view is only supported by a single source. Searching for the word been highlighted a few of these; I'd recommend you scan through the prose and rephrase these where they occur, attributing where necessary.
 * Went through and stomped the weasels. -G
 * alrighty! I think I got to everything here. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and good work so far! Additional comments are above, and I think that should be the last of them. Aside from a couple hiccups, spot-checks are going pretty smooth. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed the rest up. :3 Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Source review passed. Neutral on prose, which I only did a light skimming of in my review; I'll leave judgment of that aspect to the other reviewers. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

review from sawyer-mcdonell
saving myself a spot. i'll focus on prose, since that's what you asked for :] ... sawyer * he/they *  talk  06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, clocking in now. ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  19:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * in the leade - His portraiture has been praised for its pictoralist qualities it's "pictorialist", no?
 * I can't believe I didn't catch this! Yes, it is. - G
 * His father William Harrison Gill, a merchant, was killed in action in the Confederate Army I think this would be better as "killed in action serving in the Confederate Army"
 * Indeed. Fixed. - G
 * Washington D.C. is abbreviated variously as "D.C." and "Washington" - it would probably be better to pick a single abbreviation for the city.
 * I like that it gives the text a bit of extra diversity, but you're probably right. Settled on Washington, giving the full title when it could potentially be ambiguous. -G
 * In 1894, Powell resigned from the USGS to focus on administration of the BAE, Gill following four years later in order to continue work on Bureau publications. should be "with Gill following four years later" or "and Gill followed four years later"
 * Good point, fixed. -G
 * He married fellow Smithsonian illustrator Mary Irwin Wright on August 19, 1895 and with her had Minna P. Gill, a suffragist and librarian. They divorced in 1903, although continued business relations for some years afterwards. - this reads as a bit clunky to me. Perhaps "He married fellow Smithsonian illustrator Mary Irwin Wright on August 19, 1895 and they had Minna P. Gill, a future suffragist and librarian. Gill and Wright divorced in 1903, although they continued business relations for some years afterwards." ?
 * Good point, fixed! - G
 * Okie dokie artichokie. That should be good. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * looks good to me - i don't think i have anything else that hasn't already been pointed out by the other reviewers. at this point, happy to support :) ... sawyer  * he/they *  talk  20:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Dylan620
I, too, am saving a spot for a prose review. I used this article as bedtime reading last night, and while I didn't finish (started a little too close to lights-out), I liked what I did see and I look forward to reading this more in-depth. Dylan 620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some comments:
 * I note that we learn the name of Gill's father, but not his mother. Is the latter known information, and is there a way it can be incorporated into the article?
 * Sadly, I could not find that in any of the sources. - G
 * "often depicting Black families in domestic life" – I'm not sure if the 'b' should be capitalized.
 * This is a hotly debated stylistic issue. TLDR: Both capitalizing and not capitalizing is valid per MOS. - G
 * In that case, I would recommend capitalizing 'white' later on in the article as well as any other racial adjectives for consistency's sake. Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, fixed. - G
 * "Contemporary art criticism was favorable to Gill's work" – this reads a little awkwardly. I would suggest rephrasing to "Gill's work was favorably received by contemporary art critics"
 * Oh yeah, much better phrasing. Thank you! - G
 * "Gill rapidly was promoted" → "Gill was rapidly promoted"
 * Good fix, added. -G
 * Where multiple citations appear together, the smaller numbers should appear first; there are a few places where this can be fixed, such as after "claiming it was exactly how he was taught to sign by a friend" and a couple places in each of §Painting and §Personal_life.
 * Oops, thought I had resolved this. Fixed! - G
 * "They divorced in 1903, although continued business relations for some years afterwards." – This sentence is a little clunky; is there a way to reword it?
 * Gave it a shot. - G
 * Hmmm, this is a little better, but I think replacing "although" with "but" would flow more smoothly. Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good call, fixed. - G
 * All in all, this is a fascinating and professionally-written article, and I look forward to supporting once these minor points are addressed. BTW, if you have any time or interest, I would love some feedback in a very old FLC. Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 18:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Responded! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Appreciated! Just a couple small follow-ups and we should be good to go. Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 04:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And fixed! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Awesome possum! Support. Dylan 620  (he/him • talk • edits) 05:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

UC
I had a look at this last time it came to FAC, and reviewed it at PR. Last time around, my main worries were about comprehensiveness: I am much happier here now, though my main areas of concern at the moment are neutrality and coverage of reception. Parts of the article read as if trying to excuse or downplay his treatment of Native subjects, and I think we could also improve the organisation and comprehensiveness of the reactions to his work, particularly his painting. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The infobox image is crying out for some gentle restoration (cropping the left edge and fixing up the right, at least above the subject): I might give that a go myself.
 * I took a leaf out of Gill's book and did a sharper crop. Looks much better, thank you for suggesting. - G
 * : a few things strike me here. In other FACs, editors have raised "known for" as potentially a tricky phrase: here, for example, on what grounds do we say that he isn't known for his paintings of pueblos? Secondly, the sentence runs on: I would suggest reworking it so that it doesn't sound as if his paintings of DC were with the BAE.
 * Good points all around. I realized the sentence might not even be necessary, as the lede itself is fairly short. I gave a bit more weight to his painting career in the lede, too. - G
 * : suggest art of the period, as period art can simply mean "old art".
 * Fixed. - G
 * : I'm not sure I see this in the text. We have, but neither of those are quite the same.
 * Good point, clarified. - G
 * Why does his photography have a "Reception" section but not his painting? Most artists, writers etc have a L2 "Reception" or "Assessment" section for their whole body of work.
 * Good point. Since his photography and painting is covered so separately, I feel it wouldn't really make sense to have one reception section for his entire body of work, so I added a reception section to the painting too. - G
 * : this comes across as slightly exculpatory to me. Firstly, what's the basis for "occasional" (here and in the body) -- he seems to have done it at least twelve times, and I'm not sure we have a Native American portrait of him that's not in stereotypical dress? Secondly, why the passive voice: didn't he give the clothes to them? Finally, we've neutralised "subjects": the problem wasn't that he dressed people up in old-fashioned clothes, but specifically that these were Native Americans being asked to play up to white-American stereotypes. There's another line to be drawn between the sort of photography Gill did, anti-Native racism and the ideology of (cultural and/or physical) eradication, and I'd be surprised if nobody has drawn it in scholarship.
 * Ope! I meant to do this one last because it seemed most important, and then forgot. Reworded the lede to be more direct and not use the passive voice, good point. Unfortunately, there hasn't been a direct line drawn about Gill's work; I got in trouble for SYNTHy stuff when I had previously included more context about anti-Native imagery :( (Also for what it's worth; many of his portraits did include the delegates in plain western dress; Dick Wallace or Crane in the Sky 1913.jpg is one of my favorite photos of his. Maybe I should include one in the article? Though there isn't much more space for images. - G
 * Fair point. Could we perhaps get something in about how he did sometimes use western dress -- there seem to be plenty of sources for that? There's an interesting bit on page 82 here about how Aaron Spencer Lockear, a Native newspaper editor, chose to be depicted in a three-piece suit, rather than "Native" costume, to avoid being reduced to a stereotype, minstrel or caricature and to assert kinship with those in D.C. rather than being Othered as an "Indian": personally, I don't think it would be too SYNTHy to say something like "Malinda Maynor Lowery has written that wearing 'Native' dress like headdress and buckskins served to assert the people portrayed in the photographs as different from white American society". See also:
 * here p. 9: . Might be worth couching this one as "according to the photographer Gene J. Crediford", as Crediford clearly knew his material but wasn't an academic historian.
 * I can't see much in the preview, but there's a discussion of Gill and other ethnographic photographers on p. 63 here and their use/perpetuation of stereotypes.
 * There's quite a lot here on pp. 6 and 7, putting Gill's work into the broader social and ideological context.
 * This one, p. 32, has an alternative line of explanation for the "Native" costuming: that the subjects may not have felt it particularly important to wear the "right" tribal gear (because they had always traded clothes with other tribes anyway), and may have wished to wear "stereotypical" outfits because they also showed, in some cases, their identity as warriors or people of status.
 * This one, p. 11, talks about some specific criticisms of the work of Edward S. Curtis, then applies them to salvage photography more generally, then names Gill as one practitioner of salvage photography: I think the syllogism could be used in this article if you were so inclined. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for this! I implemented a lot of these sources into the reception section, and rephrased the lede a bit. Is that looking better? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A few things that I think we would be picking up if this was a first draft:
 * : recommend deleting heavily as editorialising: I don't think that term or framing was really present in any of our sources.
 * Fixed. - G
 * : should be that of Curtis or similar: Curtis himself was not salvage ethnography.
 * Fixed. - G
 * : an anachronism is something out of time: we've only mentioned here things that are out of place. However, I think he did also give subjects anachronistic clothing (that is, clothing that might have been worn by their ancestors, but which they wouldn't normally have worn), and that should be mentioned if so.
 * Fixed; I haven't seen sources claim specifically that anachronistic clothing was common among other photographers, but the Glenn source didn't go into too much detail about what the anachronistic clothing was, beyond rumors that it was pulled from Smithsonian collections. - G
 * : for grammar and style, all three of these should be the same form: so either participles (-ing) or gerunds (-tion/-ment).
 * Fixed. - G
 * : this, I think, needs to be explained a little: if coming at this afresh, we would ask "how?". The basic points made in the source were a) that they might have considered it normal to wear clothing originating with other tribes, since they would have done so anyway because of trade or trophies (in other words, that the well-meaning but pearl-clutching insistence on the "purity" of e.g. Lakota costume might be a form of essentialism/racialism in itself), and b) that the clothes might have been associated with high or desirable status, even if they were also stereotypical. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think this is all worded better now. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Another that I just spotted, but I'll put here for visibility: : can we do something about the repetition? I think the second after could simply go, or in a fall down a staircase might be a better replacement. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - G
 * : one of these is not like the others: two are things to draw, and one is a technical feature of drawing. I'm not sure a draftsman can specialise in perspective: isn't drawing things accurately the whole point of their trade? It would be like saying that a chef specialised in cooking food at the right temperature.
 * Yeah, saying linear perspective is unnecessary here, lol. Removed.
 * : suggest landscapes around Washington, D.C. in this and similar to avoid the awkward double punctuation.
 * Yeah, good point. - G
 * : could we get hold of that image and put it here, as it's directly discussed in the text? It ought to be PD.
 * I sadly could not find this anywhere! I think it's with his papers in the Smithsonian archives, but it does not appear to have ever been digitized. - G
 * Did anyone not praise Gill's paintings? I've yet to hear of an artist that never received a negative review.
 * He almost certainly did, but none of the sources about him (even the old newspaper mentions I dug through) mention it. - G
 * : MOS:' would like.
 * Fixed. - G
 * : who joined the BAE -- Holmes or Gill?
 * Clarified. - G
 * : I'm not sure quite what this means: it sounds from the following sentence like he used thin washes to make things look dustier. As our own images of the place show, that's not necessarily how it looks in real life, so I'm a little hesitant to entirely call this realism (as opposed to a trope). As the TV Tropes page drily points out, "In Real Life, hot places are not usually the color of straw or turmeric".
 * That's how the source describes it, but that's a good point. I removed minutiae, to avoid calling that more realistic. - G
 * : the participle phrase doesn't work here: we need "he largely stepped..." or similar.
 * Fixed.
 * : can we put a date on "archaic"?
 * Source doesn't say :( Old archaeological texts are bad at dating things. - G
 * In this context, archaic has a specific meaning, which we can and should clarify. If it were me, I'd see if I can find the assemblage itself discussed in a third source to narrow down that big chronological window. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, this predates the definition of a distinct Archaic Period in North American archaeology, which would make things hard... but it turns out the National Park Service actually has a page about these tools, and so I added a sentence of context. - G
 * : photographs of the artefacts in situ, surely?
 * Good fix. - G
 * : Gill resigned from the USGS to focus on [the] administration of the BAE?
 * Clarified. - G
 * : don't use an endash here -- better as "between 2000 and 3000", "between two and three thousand".
 * Fixed. - G
 * : what does this mean -- it sounds like it is simply repeating the previous sentence? Or do you mean that Geronimo had a standard practice of charging for portraits?
 * The latter, clarified. - G
 * We should gloss, explain and/or link totem mark.
 * I really looked hard for this and I could find no source satisfactorily explaining what this means, I think it's very antiquated terminology for an X or the like which native delegations signed on treaties. I changed this to "mark" since I think it carries the same gist. - G
 * I found this source (p. 67) which explains it a little, as being a representation of the totem (sacred animal) that protects a certain people, made at the bottom of solemn documents like a signature. The source itself is from 1890, but that's not a massive problem, since even if it was never really a Thing in that way, what matters is that white Americans like Gill thought it was. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ooh, nice! Added this as a footnote. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Practically all of the "reception" on Gill's photography consists of comments from JR Glenn, Gill's biographer. Is that an accurate reflection of the available sources on the matter?
 * Sadly, yes. I could find no other sources that really makes any subjective claims about his photography. Fleming & Luskey (1986) only really gives the base facts, and I'm pretty sure it's paraphrasing Glenn for most of it. - G
 * : It is best to restate the name at the start of a new paragraph.
 * Fixed. - G
 * : whose quote?
 * Glenn's. Clarified. - G
 * : Gill's career, or Glenn's?
 * Oh, lol, awkward phrasing there. Fixed. - G
 * : there are very good reasons not to capitalise "white", even while doing so for "Black": see here from the Columbia Journalism Review
 * And there are very good reasons to capitalize both, since they have a lot more to them then just simple descriptions of skin color. In either case, MOS:RACECAPS states there is no preferred manner here. -G
 * : shorter and simpler as became, I think.
 * Yeah, fair point. - G
 * : the participle phrase is accurate only as long as he died at the moment of fracturing: otherwise, after fracturing his skull in a fall...
 * Good point. - G
 * Hi UC, how is this one looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just replied on the major outstanding issue: I think there's a line of scholarly inquiry that needs to be integrated under WP:DUEWEIGHT. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * UC, did you get a chance to look at the last of the fixes? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Going through again with fresh eyes -- I'm feeling very good about this one, but a lot of changes have been made and I think it's useful to do so:

More may follow. UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : I think I missed this one first read, but it isn't quite grammatical with the parenthetical clause: if you bracket off a group of words by using paired commas, the remainder of the sentence should make sense. See strikes: it doesn't, at the moment.
 * Okay, rearranged that. - G
 * Could/should the USGS get a mention in the lead?
 * Good idea, mentioned.
 * : the clothing or the delegates?
 * Ah yeah, clarified. - G
 * : not quite grammatical: the rural periphery isn't within the district. Could change within to of or go for something like "the district's villages and its rural periphery". Come to think of it, were any of those villages not also part of the rural periphery? Perhaps "the villages of the district's rural periphery"?
 * I think your last phrasing here is the best. Fixed. - G
 * : can we do anything about the repetition?
 * Yes we can! - G
 * As currently phrased, his watercolours weren't of poorer neighbourhoods; is that correct? <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 11:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : how come it's the Zuni Pueblo but just Pueblo Bonito?
 * I think I wrote that because it's the pueblo of the Zuni, but then I realize it rarely gets a definite article anyhow. - G
 * : the general rule, though it's not universal, is to use the present tense when we aren't particularly concerned about when a scholar or academic wrote (that is, "Smith says that Washington was a great president; Jones disagrees"). Using the past tense, as here, creates the (here false) impression that the writers and their subject were roughly contemporary. If you want to keep it, suggest putting a date on these art historians and Lisa Goff (in fact, I'd do that anyway).
 * Having dates works for context, good idea. - G
 * : in flowing text, better not to use abbreviations if we can help it: approximately 2000 BC or similar.
 * Fixed. - G
 * : could link carbon dating if you like. I wonder if it's a little uncharitable to bash Holmes for not thinking of a technology that wouldn't be invented for over half a century?
 * Fixed. And fair point, although it's one the NPS makes about the site; I will concede it's a bit off topic here. Made it more concise. - G

I think I'm done! You gave me quite a workout here, but it's been very productive work; this has really tightened up the article. Thank you very much! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * : hyphenate as a compound modifier: working-class shanties.
 * Done. - G
 * : there's a missing link here: an exploration is not a published work. Were the photos later published in a book?
 * Ah, I realized I took a leap of faith saying published. First known photographic work. - G
 * : on first read, it's not clear what this position is: suggest "Gill was appointed as the Bureau's photographer ... two previous photographers. In this position..."
 * Good fix, done. - G
 * : of his photographs, or of his subjects?
 * Both sources use "portraits", so I'll use that. - G
 * : in this context, shouldn't Native be capitalised (especially if we also capitalise Black and '"White'').
 * Ope, yes! - G
 * : either Native American tribes or Native Americans: tribes is sometimes considered pejorative or primitivising ("peoples"?)
 * Peoples sound best.
 * : suggest clarifying to sit for the photographs, as it sounds as if they might otherwise have been paid in their capacity as delegates.
 * Good idea, fixed. - G
 * : you take photographs, not photography (just as you draw drawings, not drawing)
 * Good fix. - G
 * : either restate Gill's name or close the two paragraphs up.
 * Fixed. - G
 * : suggest giving a date for this.
 * Added. - G
 * We're inconsistent about whether initials have a space after them (A. J. Olmstead) or not (J.R. Glenn). Per WP:INITS, the usual form is to use a space.
 * Fixed. - G
 * : is this directly supported by the source? I haven't re-checked, but I don't remember it.
 * The source says that the provisioning of clothing articles by photographers of Native Americans in general was made without regard to trade connections. I broadened my phrasing a bit here. - G


 * Just a couple of extras (sorry) now that I've looked at the bibliography:
 * It's not wrong to arrange sources in date order, but it is unusual. The overwhelming norm in academic writing is to arrange by surname.
 * Alphabetized. - G
 * It's very unusual to include month and day of a book's publication (those are generally only used for magazines which publish many times a year, or for websites). Would advise sticking to years, especially as those are all we have for some books.
 * Done. - G
 * What's the logic as to which sources are included in the bibliography?
 * "Sources, not including news, with multiple pages"... Which I realize now the Water Color Society and Stoll sources don't count as. Oops, fixed. - G
 * And Leatham 1965, surely -- unless the news was about 65 years late? That then leaves Weidman 2012 as the only citation with full information (that is, an author, a date and a title) not in the bibliography, so I'd consider relaxing your "with multiple pages" criterion for it, but up to you. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 20:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough point. Added both of these. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 21:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In biographical articles, "Works cited" is sometimes a better title than "Bibliography", which can mean "the books the subject wrote".
 * Good point, renamed. - G
 * Bettany 1890 should have an OCLC or OL identifier (it won't have an ISBN).
 * Added. - G
 * The title of Stoll 2003 (not in bibliography) seems to have "and Contextual Value" doubled.
 * Fixed. -G
 * Suggest amending "Washington" to "Washington, D.C." in publisher locations.:
 * Done. - G
 * <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 18:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, fixed! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: all happy here. As Generalissima alludes, the article has improved tremendously over its recent lifespan, and that is a credit to her hard work on it. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 06:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Matarisvan
Just two minor comments: In any case, the article is a great read, once these changes are done, the article has my support.
 * In the text and the link we have Henry H Glassie as Cosentino's co author, but in the biblio citation his name is noted as Andrew J Glassie. If the correct name is the former and not the latter, consider changing?
 * Consider linking to George Thomas Bettany?
 * Oops! Good fixes on both counts. Corrected. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:27, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, if I'm not wrong, the photo of Chief Joseph and of Gill in 1885 should be on the right, per MOS:IMAGELOCATION. Wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:PORTRAIT, portraits facing towards the right should be left-aligned so they "Face towards the text." Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe @Nikkimaria is the expert on this, they would know which of these rules would override the other one. Matarisvan (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * MOS:PORTRAIT is a specific case of the general rule set out in MOS:IMAGELOC, so inasfar as MoS rules bind or override each other, it takes precedence. <b style="color:#7F007F">UndercoverClassicist</b> T·C 09:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Both are general rules ("Most images", "It is often preferable"), although in this particular case I would argue that Chief Joseph could be said to be facing in either direction. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

 * Stoll needs an identifier. Eg an OCLC, which would be 1264798187.
 * Gill assumed a role as the BAE's head photographer". "BAE" in brackets after first mention please.
 * it has been critiqued for". It would be helpful to give the period when it was so critiqued, or if ongoing when it started. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There we go, I think that's better now. Thank you! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:16, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * One more: "Although not trained in photography, Gill assumed a role as the BAE's head photographer following the resignation of two of the Smithsonian's prior photographers." 1. Is it possible to squeeze in the date Gill assumed this role? It seems an important point. 2. The sentence structure seems a little convoluted. Perhaps simplify to something like 'Although not trained in photography, Gill assumed the role of the BAE's head photographer, following the resignation of two of the Smithsonian's prior photographers'? Or, possibly better as it retains the chronological flow of the narrative, 'Following the resignation of two of the Smithsonian's photographers, Gill assumed the role of the BAE's head photographer, although not trained in photography.' Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Does that phrasing look better? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)