Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a247039f2aaa3337

Jump to content

Talk:Lynch Fragments

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 11 months ago by WriterArtistDC in topic GA review
Former featured article candidateLynch 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.
Good articleLynch 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.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 21, 2025Peer reviewReviewed
August 21, 2025Good article nomineeListed
November 16, 2025Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 25, 2026Peer reviewReviewed
Did You Know 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

GA review

[edit]
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: