Wait, I know - before you say it: Lots of authors use sentence fragments stylistically. That's their voice, and it's wrong to try to change them.
I agree. Lots of authors use sentence fragments. Some do it well. There are places where a fragment works because a complete sentence would actually be too wordy or too clunky. A few choice words arranged strategically can drive home a point, or evoke an image the way a full on explanation couldn't.
But sometimes fragments aren't art, they're just incomplete images. Fragments that are long-winded descriptions of things but that still don't contain a verb are not stylistic. They're puzzle pieces. Fragments that evoke a feeling or an image but don't give the reader a clear picture of what the author is talking about are not art, they're lacking a frame of reference.
When I edit, I tend to highlight fragments in an author's work not because I want to annoy them or change their voice, but because I want their descriptions to be fuller and more meaningful. I want to see the whole picture. Just like they do.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, why not use all the words you need to desribe the picture you see?