Talk:Utah monolith

Over at List of works similar to the 2020 Utah monolith it was pointed out that there are other monoliths in Utah, many holding the common name for a long time. With the cooling of time, does it make sense to add a year to the title here? – SJ + 00:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably not. The 2020 version received worldwide media coverage and Utah monolith is the WP:COMMONNAME, eg .--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Call it Utah monolith (2020). When adding year disambiguates we don't go by common name. Personally I think it should be Utah metal monolith which is more descriptive, and disambiguates at the same time, all other monoliths are natural. WP:COMMONNAME says Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.. This is precisly the case here. Most of those sources were contemporary to the event, when everyone knew what it meant, but Wikipedia is writing for a 100 year audience, they don't have the context of knowing what "Utah monolith" means. It fails the WP:CRITERIA list of name ("Precision"), it's ambiguous, and by extension fails COMMONNAME per the green quote. -- GreenC 19:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The article title remains ambiguous, per my comments above (green quotes). Some other suggestions include "Monolith meme" or "Utah monolith meme". Or replace meme with "trend". See Category:Internet memes introduced in 2020 and Category:2020s fads and trends which these articles are part of. -- GreenC 15:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

was not magnetic, and appeared to be made of 1/8th inch stainless steel or aluminum sheets

Is there such a thing as non-magnetic steel? —Tamfang (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I searched "non-magnetic steel" in Google and got some results like "Some stainless steels are magnetic, and others are not. The defining factor of magnetism comes down to the the steel's microstructure" and "Most stainless steels falling under this category are non-magnetic because they contain high amounts of austenite." (CC) Tbhotch^™ 06:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Stainless steel is often non-magnetic. I can confirm this because some of my stainless steel saucepans will not work on an induction hob. If a magnet won't stick to it, it won't work on an induction hob. Steel is an alloy and it isn't always magnetic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nominator: Askarion (talk · contribs) 13:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 03:51, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Note: This review is offered in partial fulfillment of a review pledge for the article In Memory of Theo Faiss (review).

Infobox

• Why are the dimensions in different units than in the lead/body?

Y I think the artwork infobox prefers units like inches and centimeters. I've changed them to reflect the article's body. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Lead

• "the monolith was given" — Passive voice. Who gave it?

Y By Andy Lewis. He probably warrants a mention in the lead anyway, so I've added it. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Location and dating

• "The pillar was installed by unknown individuals in a sandstone slot canyon in San Juan County, Utah" — The last part is partly repetitive of the previous section (which mentions it was discovered in a slot canyon), and could perhaps ben put there.

Y Done. All that was missing in that first section was the county, anyway. I removed the reptition. 〜 Askarion ✉ 14:01, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "Local residents feared that a surge in foot traffic could damage local Native American sites and artifacts. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which manages the land, reported that tourists "left behind a mess of human waste, cars parked on vegetation and other debris" and warned that the site could not handle the sudden influx of visitors." — Is "Location and dating" the right place for this? I expect an entire section on "Controversy" could be added to the article.

Y I've moved them into the new § Reactions section. They're a better fit there. 〜 Askarion ✉ 12:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Description

• "like a cardboard box" — Whose words?

Y The words of David Surber, a Reddit user who CNN claims "may have been among the very first to view the monolith in person". I chose not to use his name but wouldn't oppose it. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

The attribution you added ("one early visitor") is perfect. I agree the name is unnecessary. --Usernameunique (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Attribution

• "The object was compared to works" — Passive voice. Who did the comparing?

Y Several art critics, gallerists, journalists, and a few people on online forums. Fixed and attributed. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

• "As of March 2025" — Is there a more recent source discussing this?

Y Unfortunately not that I could find. As far as I can tell, that NYT article is the most recent reliable source that mentions the monolith at all. And even worse, it says nothing more substantial than "nothing has changed". 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Legality

• This section feels under-developed. It's basically two quotations, one of them exceptionally long, and reads as a timeline of statements rather than an analysis of an issue. Can you find more sources discussing this, and be more judicious with the Utah quotation?

Comment: Honestly, I don't know why I kept that giant quote intact. Reading it through, it's a bit repetitive. I might make the entire Legality section a subsection somewhere else. There's not much to be said about the legality of installing sculptures on public land without authorization. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

You could probably fold the issue of legality into the "Reactions" or "Controversy" section that I suggested elsewhere. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I went with "Reactions" for the new section because I'm hesitant to call the things people said about it a controversy. I might add another sentence or two about how people reacted to it but I'd have to do a tad more research, so I'm moving onto the Removal section for now because that's the biggest task staring me down at the moment. 〜 Askarion ✉ 12:56, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Agreed with your thoughts as to naming—"Reactions" seems better/more neutral. A minor point, but the source you use for the Twitter statement actually says it was on Facebook. I assume it was on both (the Twitter statement still exists on what is now X), but you should add a second source (maybe the Twitter statement itself). --Usernameunique (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Removal

• Similar with the above, this section reads as a timeline of information unfolding, which is typical of how you would see it written at the time. Years after the fact, however, it should by now read in order of what actually happened. For example, it should lead off with how Andy Lewis and his friends removed it, and then get into the fallout and reactions.
• I'll review the rest of this section once you've had a chance to restructure it.

I've reworked the section to the best of my abilities, but my "rough draft" might still be a bit lacking. Maybe it's just because I've been starting at these paragraphs for two years but I'm not used to "seeing the story told" in this order so I can't tell yet if it's the most helpful way I could have arranged it. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:14, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

Similar monoliths

• "As of June 2024" — Anything more recent?

Y Unfortunately not that I could find. There was a bit of a spike in interest when the 2024 monolith was found in Las Vegas, but most publications forgot about it as quickly as it arrived. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Overall

• This article is in decent shape. In several places, however, it reads as a timeline of discovery rather than as a retrospective summary of the available information. In addition, it could use a section such as "Reactions" or "Controversy" to discuss peoples' takes on it.

Thank you for your review (and copy edits)! I'm still a bit new to the GA process and seem to keep missing easy mistakes like passive voice. I've made the suggested edits above and will take the next day or two to rework the remaining sections into a more helpful order. 〜 Askarion ✉ 13:54, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

No problem, Askarion. Opinions vary of use of passive voice, and I tend to like it at times. It becomes more of an issue when (a) the person who undertook the action is known, but (b) the use of passive voice obscures that knowledge. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2026 (UTC)