Lynch Fragments is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
	Lynch Fragments has been listed as one of the Art and architecture 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 February 21, 2025 Peer review Reviewed August 21, 2025 Good article nominee Listed November 16, 2025 Featured article candidate Not promoted A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 7, 2025. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Lynch Fragments sculptures are made with metal scraps and objects like axes, barbed wire, chains, nails, padlocks, spikes, and wrenches? Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Visual arts This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts 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.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts

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

Nominator: 19h00s (talk · contribs) 16:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: WriterArtistDC (talk · contribs) 14:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This should be quick, since the heavy lifting was done in the January peer review. I will likely only do a spot check of sources. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate. (I recognize the difficulty of finding images of contemporary works of art.)

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: