Talk:Lynch Fragments

Michael Aurel

I looked at this in the previous PR, and asked you to ping me when you took it to FAC, but then didn't show up! Sorry about that (I think I was rather inactive on Wikipedia at the time). I'll hopefully take another look at this over the next day or two. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Before you start working through these points from top to bottom, I'll note that the ones in the first part are prose suggestions, and the later comments are more general thoughts. Feel free to attack these in whichever order you please. – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

You are awesome, thank you so much!! Will jump into these later today/this week/weekend, thank you again! 19h00s (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

No problem! Feel free to take your time; there's no rush here. – Michael Aurel (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, let me know if you'd like me to whisk away the resolved points into a "collapse" template (or onto the talk page, or wherever else). I know some editors find it a pain to swim through them all as they're addressing the remaining points. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you thank you!! Coming back to this today/tomorrow, spending more time on the broader comments toward the bottom. No need to remove everything already addressed, it helps me feel like I'm accomplishing something seeing it all struck through like this haha 19h00s (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Haha, makes sense, and sounds good. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• created by American artist Melvin Edwards. The artist began the series in 1963 and has continued it throughout his entire career, – You could probably get away with simply writing "He", to avoid the repetition of "artist".
  •  Done - 19h00s
• The artist began the series in 1963 and has continued it throughout his entire career, aside from two periods in the 1960s and 1970s. – I think "entire" could be omitted here ("throughout" already implies this, I'd say).
  •  Done Agreed, I kinda thought the "entire" was superfluous - 19h00s
• The sculptures number around 300, and are small and usually wall-based assemblages – "small, usually wall-based" sounds slightly more natural to me. If you do this, the comma might not be needed after "300", but I'll let you choose on that one.
  •  Done - 19h00s
• Edwards, an African-American artist who grew up in both [...] has described the works as metaphors for both – A bit picky, but see if it's possible to phrase this so there is only one "both".
  •  Done Oh trust me it's not picky haha, I had this exact thought on my last re-read. Let me know if it feels too run-on-y now. - 19h00s
• Additionally, many of the works explicitly reference African and African-American history, contemporary political events, and notable figures from Edwards's life and studies in their titles. – Mmm. I'd see if "titles" can be worked in a little earlier in the sentence, as otherwise the reader will probably assume that it's the content of the works which contain these allusions until they reach the end. Would something like "In their titles, many of the works ..." work? This suggestion also omits "Additionally", which arguably isn't needed here.
  •  Done Def, this works better and introduces the connection more quickly. - 19h00s

• In interpreting the Lynch Fragments, some critics and art historians have highlighted the possible sociocultural and historical allusions in the underlying materials and titles, – I think that this opening phrase could probably be removed, and a mention of "the series" or "the Lynch Fragments" worked into the main part of the sentence; for example, something like "materials and titles of the works" might work, or it might be preferable to work it in earlier.
  • I think I get what you mean here - chop off "In interpreting the Lynch Fragments", combined with the suggested edit below. - 19h00s
• have highlighted the possible sociocultural and historical allusions in the underlying materials and titles – A few queries on this phrase in particular. By "materials", do we mean the objects that make up these works? Judging by the earlier description, the actual material itself is mostly (or entirely) metal. I'd consider turning "have highlighted the possible" into "have observed", which seems more direct. Also, "underlying" might not be necessary (this may depend on what we mean by "materials");
  • Yeah you're right, this isn't super clear - by "materials" I meant the objects that make them up, but the technical "material" is metal. How does "...have observed sociocultural and historical allusions in the underlying objects and titles of the Lynch Fragments..." sound?  Done - 19h00s
    • That's definitely better. You could also consider something like "constituent objects", which is perhaps a little more concrete, but the current phrasing is perfectly fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• while others have argued that the works are examples of formalist abstraction whose meanings are primarily visual rather than political. – I think this is one of those cases where MOS:NOFORCELINK applies; the general point gets across to the reader with the current approach, but ideally we would explain what "formalist" means. It's possible omitting the word is the best move, especially if explaining it will be difficult. I do notice it only appears once in the article's body.
  • Will circle back on this after I adjust the "reception" section. It's hard to explain formalism succinctly, but I think there's a way to thread the needle without forcing the link - that word has been used over and over by critics writing about these pieces (both in arguing for them as formalist abstraction and arguing for them as social/political critique), so I think it warrants somewhat of an explanation. - 19h00s

• The pieces in the series are among Edwards's best-known and most widely lauded works. – Hmm. This is basically fine, but I assume it's only some of the works in the series that we're talking about here. If so, would something like "The series includes some of Edwards's ..." work? Making a statement about the series as a whole might also work, if that would be more accurate. I'd also be a little wary of phrases like "widely lauded"; I haven't read the rest of the article yet, so I don't know if it's justified, but I'd generally only use this sort of phrase if we have a tertiary source which says more or less the same thing.
  • Will circle back to this after I've gone through the rest of your suggestions - I generally agree, but want to see if you had a different take after reading the prose. - 19h00s

• It's worth noting that the lead, at 214 words, is a bit under the 250 to 400 range mentioned by MOS:LEADLENGTH. Those are of course only general suggestions, though, so wouldn't worry too much about this.
  • Heard, I might take a crack at expanding some visual description in the lead. - 19h00s

• Melvin Edwards (born 1937), an African-American sculptor of abstract art, – We generally link things again in the body, so I'd link his name here.
  •  Done - 19h00s
• had been experimenting with welding small metal scraps together – I'm not exactly a metalworking aficionado, but my impression is one only welds things together (and not apart, for example), right? Arguably "welding" could also take a link.
  • Ha yeah you're right, you can't exactly weld something in half,  Done on both - 19h00s
• that began his Lynch Fragments series. This first work in the series, titled Some Bright Morning, – Hmm. I'm not sure if it will be a hassle with the citations, but it feels as though we're making largely the same statement twice. Perhaps something like "that became the first work in his Lynch Fragments series" would work?
  • Let me know how the adjustment looks, tried to remove the repetition using your phrasing,  Done - 19h00s

• He identified the practices of several other artists – As we last mentioned his name at the beginning of the previous paragraph, I'd repeat it here.
  •  Done - 19h00s
• He identified the practices of several other artists as inspirational for the series, – I think it'd be possible to condense this down to something like "Edwards has described the series as inspired by ..." or "According to Edwards, inspirations for the series include ...".
  • I like that second option, ty,  Done - 19h00s

• including the welded sculpture of David Smith, the sculpture and painting of Julio González, and the work of Theodore Roszak. – Initially, I read this as referring to a particular sculpture depicting some fellow called David Smith. It might depend on what you do with the previous suggestion, but "David Smith's welded sculptures" would work.
  •  Done, but do you think the second artist on the list needs similar treatment? I thought so at first but I hate to do a possessive "'s" on a last name ending in "s" or "z" when I can avoid it haha. - 19h00s
    • That mightn't be a bad idea, in the interest of parallelism, though it may depend on how we want to phrase the last part. I'd consider how much of a distinction there is between "sculpture and painting" for González and "work" for Roszak, seeing as the latter seems to have been a sculptor and painter. (To put it another way: by "work", do we mean "sculpture and painting"?) This might lead you into a phrasing like "and the x of Julio González and Theodore Roszak". – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Rather annoying, I realise, but we have some MOS:SANDWICHing near the top of the "Background and history" section.
  • Not annoying at all, this was what I was struggling with in terms of placement. I felt like including an image of one of the inspirations was helpful, but after moving pieces around I realized all the possible/useful images would be clustered in this section. Removed La Montserrat for now and moved the other images to the right, let me know if you have a suggestion for re-adding the sculpture. - 19h00s

• Per MOS:CAPFRAG, full stops are generally omitted when the caption doesn't constitute a full sentence.
  •  Done - 19h00s
• Beyond the styles and techniques of these artists, Edwards was inspired by the ways they communicated their social and political beliefs through their work, – Maybe something like "Edwards was also inspired by the ways these artists communicated"? I think the first phrase is already implied by the previous sentence.
  • Agreed,  Done - 19h00s

• including in Smith's antifascist sculpture series – Should this be "anti-fascist", perhaps?
  •  Done - 19h00s

• While drawing inspiration from these artists and their works, Edwards wanted to transcend the figuration used in those pieces, seeking ways to utilize abstract imagery and welding to communicate his beliefs. – If I'm honest, much of this feels as though it's already been stated or implied. I think the first phrase can be omitted, and the last phrase mentions again their abstract nature and the use of welding. I'm not quite what the ideal solution is here. Per MOS:NOFORCELINK, I'd also include an explanation for "figuration".
  • Let me know how this sounds, although if you think it needs scrapping I'm happy to try again: "While drawing inspiration from these artists and their works, Edwards wanted to move beyond their use of the human figure and communicate his beliefs through abstract imagery."  Done - 19h00s
    • I think the phrasing in the latter part works well, and I don't think anything there needs changing. The phrase I'd question is the first one, as we've already mentioned that he took inspiration from them. I see the thinking with its inclusion: the last sentence pulls in the opposite direction to the rest of paragraph, and the use of "while" prepares us for this. Something like "Edwards, however, wanted to ..." might also achieve this, though I'll admit it isn't wonderfully elegant. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
      • This is a good solution, at least temporarily. I might adjust again when I move things around to fix some of the structure notes you outlined at the bottom.  Done - 19h00s

• The title Edwards chose for the series was partly a response to these developments, – "The title of the series was chosen partly as a response", perhaps? It probably isn't necessary to repeat his name here.
  •  Done - 19h00s

• in particular the 1962 killing of Ronald Stokes, – "particularly" sounds slightly more natural here to me.
  •  Done - 19h00s

• an unarmed black man shot dead by police in Watts while he had been attempting to de-escalate a raid on the Nation of Islam mosque – I'd omit "he had been" here.
  •  Done - 19h00s

• He had also recently read several news reports and stories about various contemporary and historical lynchings – Assuming it doesn't impact the meaning too much, I'd omit "several" and "various".
  •  Done - 19h00s

• contemporary and historical lynchings and instances of attempted violence across the country, – What sorts of violence? I'm assuming that this violence was against black people in particular. I would probably also omit "across the country", unless it's needed.
  • Took out "across the country" - I made "attempted violence" general at first because 100 Years has stories of lynchings of non-Black people (there's an equally dark history, particularly in the American West, of lynchings targeting Hispanic & Latino, Indigenous, and Asian people), but the sources all point to anti-black violence as the primary information he was reading; swapped to "attempted anti-black violence", with a link to "anti-black racism". Thoughts?  Done - 19h00s
    • Looks good to me. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• instances of attempted violence across the country, including Ralph Ginzburg's anthology 100 Years of Lynchings, – I think this technically reads as though the book itself was an attempt at violence. Maybe "including in Ralph ..."?
  •  Done - 19h00s

• Ralph Ginzburg's anthology 100 Years of Lynchings, a compilation of reports published in 1962. – I'd omit "a compilation of reports", as I think that's essentially already implied (by "anthology" and by the work's title).
  •  Done - 19h00s

• The title of the first sculpture in the series, Some Bright Morning, – I'd omit the first phrase, as we introduced the work only a few paragraphs ago.
  • Adjusted this slightly, I think we still need to say "The title of Some Bright Morning alludes..." so it's clear what's doing the alluding, so to speak (lol)  Done - 19h00s

• Edwards has referenced the Florida story from Ginzburg's anthology several times – Maybe "this story" (in place of "the Florida story from Ginzburg's anthology")?
  • Good adjustment,  Done - 19h00s

• the phrase actually originated in a different story from Ginzburg's book. The original source of the quote is the story – I'd see if this can be condensed a little.
  • Adjusted - let me know how that looks, took out "the original source of the quote is"  Done - 19h00s

• Having grown up in urban communities in Dayton, Ohio, and Houston, – I'd be consistent about whether we mention the state. Honestly, I initially read this as three different places, but that one's probably just my ignorance of US geography showing. ;)
  • This is a good reminder of my own geographic biases lol, adjusted so they're both City, State, in keeping with the structure of the longer one and the geo link rules

• somewhat protected from more violent civilian racism in rural areas, – I'd consider whether both "somewhat" and "more" are needed here; one might do.
  • Removed "somewhat", meaning retained but less verbose  Done - 19h00s

• have experiences directly connected with lynching – This is pretty much fine, but "directly" and "connected with" feel as though they're tugging in opposite directions. How specific does the source allow us to be? Something like "know anyone who was lynched" might be ideal, if that's possible.
  • Agreed specific would be better, but Craft only says "no direct exposure to lynching". OK as is, or should I try and adjust? - 19h00s
    • Hmm. A tricky one. Would "direct experiences with lynching" work, perhaps? – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Agreed, this works!  Done 19h00s

• Not a big deal, but there's a slight discrepancy in how we cite the two quotes: in the first instance we have "quoted in Craft (2015), p. 14" in the citation, and in the latter we have "quoted in Brenson, Michael, 'Lynch Fragments'" in the body. Or is this because he was speaking in the latter case?
  • This annoyed me too, I would've liked for them to be uniform, but the Brenson chapter directly quoted Edwards from interviews the author conducted and cited (Brenson didn't reproduce or publish the interviews, he just quotes from them), while the Craft chapter quoted an actual written work published by Edwards, so it seemed best to attribute in the body directly to the original. lmk if that doesn't make sense though. I'll probably go through and clarify in the citations for other quotes from that Brenson chapter so they read "Melvin Edwards, quoted in Brenson..." - 19h00s
    • Yeah, that's perfectly fine. – Michael Aurel (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Edwards chose the title in order to bring "that scale of intensity and that kind of power" – I'd omit "in order" here.
  •  Done - 19h00s

• He has reiterated several times that he did not want the sculptures – As I think "several times" is already implied by "reiterated", I'd omit the former.
  •  Done - 19h00s

• to be viewed solely through the lens of formalist art discourse, or the study of art purely through its visual attributes without social or political contextualization, – It's worth considering whether removing "or" will make it clearer that "the study of art ..." is a definition of "formalist art", rather than another lens through which he didn't want the series being viewed.
  • Combined with suggestion below,  Done - 19h00s

• so he used the title to make viewers understand that the social context of the sculptures was inextricable from their visual form. – As in some another places, this is fine, but it feels as though at least some of it has already been implied. A bit rough, but turning this sentence into something like "He also chose it because he did not want the sculptures ... without social or political contextualization." might work.
  • I think I still have a lingering habit of spelling everything out super explicitly to make art historical discussions accessible for a general audience, but yeah this is probably already implied in the first half of the sentence haha.  Done - 19h00s

• Edwards continued producing Lynch Fragments sculptures until January 1967, stopping work on the series when he relocated from Los Angeles to New York. – I'd omit "work on the series" here.
  •  Done - 19h00s

• and he turned his focus to his other bodies of work like his – I'd go for something like "and he turned his focus to works like his".
  •  Done - 19h00s

• He began making sculptures for the series again in 1973, – Maybe "resumed work on the series"?
  • I like this phrasing,  Done - 19h00s
• He was also impelled to return to the series by – I'd omit "to the series" here.
  •  Done - 19h00s

• The Lynch Fragments works from this period are slightly larger than the earlier sculptures and extend further off the wall. Art historian Catherine Craft characterizes the sculptures from 1973 as "more physically aggressive". – As I think "this period" and "1973" are the same here, I suggest using only the latter, and joining the sentences (for example, "and art historian Catherine Craft characterizes them as ...").
  • Yep, makes sense -  Done - 19h00s

• giving him the opportunity to view a large number of the Lynch Fragments sculptures installed together – Hmm. Judging by the citation, there were sixteen in this exhibition. Given there ended up being around 300 of these works, does this count as "a large number"?
  • It's weird, like every source has described it as a "large" or "significant" number except Brenson, who gives the exact figure. And many sources are citing Brenson, so you'd think they'd just say the number like he did. I think the idea is that this was a "large number" for Edwards at the time, as he didn't seem to have many left in his studio? But I'm also reading into it at that point as the sources don't get specific. Thoughts? - 19h00s
    • That's a little perplexing. One path forwards would be to specify "sixteen" (and let the reader decide if this is a large number or not). The one way this could cause us problems is if the multitudinousness of the sculptures in the exhibit was particularly important to his decision to resume work on the series. The quote we provide from Benson doesn't suggest this is the case, though I don't have access to Craft. If it was indeed important, there might be another phrasing here ("this many" could work, for example) that avoids the reader – when they see "sixteen" in the quote – wondering whether the "300" figure was incorrect or whether Wikipedia editors are simply arithmetically challenged. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:22, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
      • Oh I really like that as a solution - switched to "exhibition at the Studio Museum in Harlem which included sixteen Lynch Fragments sculptures, giving him the opportunity to view that many installed together in a gallery for the first time in several years"  Done - 19h00s

• Craft described Edwards's choice to begin work on the series again as "motivated by creative rather than political urgency", – I'd write "resume work on the series".
  •  Done - 19h00s

• although several of the Lynch Fragments sculptures from after 1978 – I think it might be possible to avoid repeating the name of the series here. "although several sculptures from ...", maybe?
  • Agreed,  Done - 19h00s

• do reference in their titles current or recent events, – Perhaps personal taste, but this reads slightly better to me with "in their titles" at the end of the phrase.
  • Reads better that way,  Done - 19h00s

• among which are the 1976 Soweto uprising and the Iraq War (2003-2011). – Endash for year ranges. I would also write "including the ...".
  •  Done - 19h00s

• Regarding the section heading Post–1978: Full return to series, new global inspirations, "Post-1978" should have a hyphen, I think.
  •  Done - 19h00s}}

This is down to the end of the "1967–1978: Series paused, briefly restarted before full return" section. I've just now stepped back and wondered if this is quite the advice you were hoping for here; I've jumped straight in with the prose nitpicking. I will look over the rest of the prose, but switching tact before I do so might be a good move. After skimming the remainder of the article, here are a few general comments which spring to mind:

• You mentioned the page's structure in your opening comment. The overall approach here (roughly speaking: background, then description, then reception) seems like the correct one. I think the text is broken up to an appropriate degree, so I wouldn't be worried about it coming across as a "wall of text". Focusing on the first subsection under "Background and history", my only real concern is that I'm not sure the prose "flows" from one topic to the next quite as well as it could. We start by discussing his tinkering with welding and describe the first work in the series. We then move to discussing the artists who inspired the series, its political and social context, and the reasons for the use of "lynch" in the title. To put it another way, the heading suggests that this section will progress chronologically, but I'm not sure I can say I've started at 1963 and ended up at 1966.

A good starting point would be to see if the two discussions of the first sculpture can be brought together. It would also be worth considering where certain paragraphs that don't explicitly contain dates fit chronologically. For example, is the paragraph about artistic influences talking about artists who have inspired him across the course of the series, or specifically those who inspired him to start the series? If it's the latter, this information probably implicitly falls before the creation of the first sculpture. If it's the former, then this paragraph might even work better as part of a general, separate "influences" section. Looking at later paragraphs: the one about recent political events seems to partly be in 1962, and it isn't clear when he gave the series the "Lynch Fragments" title.

• The article seems to comprehensively cover most aspects of this series. The only place where I feel I'm left wanting a little is a tangible understanding of the works themselves. From the two images, for example, it's hard to see how these works would look like skulls or have parts which look like mouths or phalluses. (More images would also be wonderful, but I assume copyright is stopping us from adding any.) Mentioning some more individual works might also be a good move, as we've only explicitly described the first sculpture. I'll toss out a few scattered thoughts; I realise you won't have the sourcing to address most of them, but some might serve as useful prompts. Are any individual sculptures particularly big, small, or otherwise unusual in shape or structure? How have these works evolved over time? How much variation is there in the series, or are they fairly stylistically homogeneous? Have any individual works attracted praise or criticism? Is there any relationship between the titles of the works and their content (for example, is a work which references a word from an African language visually different to one which commemorates the abolition of slavery in Brazil)?
• In the "Reception and analysis", I concur with your assessment that there are a few too many quotes. Honestly, the best approach might simply be to jump in and see how much you can write in your own words. In many cases, there we will be a phrase or two that doesn't lend itself to paraphrasing, but quoting three or four words is definitely an improvement over quoting a full sentence. Going through and considering which quotes don't add much to the reader's understanding might also be helpful; for example, I think most will read "found in them indescribable truth and beauty" as essentially saying "she liked them". I'm not entirely what sourcing preferences are in the art world, but I'd lean towards giving more weight to books and scholarly journals than magazines and newspapers.
• I would also think about how we introduce different individuals. In some cases, we specify their background ("critic Gail Gregg") and in some cases we don't ("John Yau wrote"). Sometimes the publication or year are included and sometimes they aren't; is there a particular approach being followed here? The year does definitely seem relevant for older comments, as there were fewer works in the series back then. As a very general rule, I'd tend to lean in favour of omitting introductory information unless it impacts the statement in question.
• In the "Exhibition history" section, I'd see if some of the paragraphs can be combined (or perhaps expanded). Per MOS:PARA, avoiding paragraphs that are only one or two sentences long is generally a good idea.
• I notice there are two works in the "Further reading" section. As a word of warning, there's a good chance a reviewer at FAC will say something like "those look useful, you should use them in the article".
• If you plan on heading to FAC again after this, adding the page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar could be a good move.

As a general comment, I don't see that anything here puts a second run at FAC out of reach in the near future. The prose is generally well-written throughout, needing some minor pruning in places. Other than that, I think the only real obstacles are the use of quotes in the "Reception and analysis" section, some more description of the works themselves, and a bit more structural clarity in the first part of the article. There are a fair few suggestions here; assuming it's helpful, I'll probably review the rest of the prose sometime soon, but I might've already given you a fair bit to think about! – Michael Aurel (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

FAC PR sidebar

• @19h00s: I have added this article to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar. Please consider reviewing other articles listed there. Since you are working towards your first successful FAC, I recommend getting a mentor who can comment in this PR. I also recommend that you review articles at WP:FAC now to build goodwill amongst FAC reviewers and help learn the FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

LastJabberwocky

Hi, giving some pocky suggestions on ref format and possibly on prose. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• ref 44 missing access date
  • Does a ref need an access date if it was only accessed via a database service? I thought the access date parameter was just for sources with a direct URL, but correct me if I'm wrong there - I read this source via EBSCO, with the content ID linked at the end of the citation. - 19h00s
• Daily Breeze can be linked
  •  Done - 19h00s
• It is always nice to standardize letter in the ref titles (either most capitalized or only proper nouns and the first word capitalized). For example: "ART; Freestanding Metaphors of Suffering and Strength" vs "Retrospective features Melvin Edwards' work depicting civil-rights struggle"
  • For some reason I thought the guideline was to retain the capitalization style of the source itself (apart from all-caps), but re-reading the citation style guidelines I see you're right! Will fix this momentarily. - 19h00s
• Cannot help you with the pictures question. Can we add more, as Michael suggested or is it too much of copyvio? NikkiMaria often reviews FA images so they might help with that
  • I do have quite a few more photos of these sculptures that I've taken myself at museums/galleries, but I want to be judicious and only include works that are directly discussed and described in prose. Will think on this more. - 19h00s