Talk:Conformity Gate/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Brynn Who Likes Editing (talk · contribs) 19:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Sddarealone (talk · contribs) 19:44, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing this as a part of WT:GARC#131, I will begin with the review shortly.

At the moment, I can say though that as a large amount of info within the body draws from fan culture around the TV series, spotchecking will become essential here because of possible WP:OR and WP:NPOV concerns. Other than that, the article looks good to go. As a fun fact, this is my first GANR in which the lede doesn't have a infobox :)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, lists, and tables): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions and alt text):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Sddarealone (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Prose check

Extended content

• After a thorough read, the punctuation usage (MOS:OXFORD) seems to be very heavy in the prose so chances are that most of the prose issues can be related to it.
• Because of the punctuations, the prose reads dense so the reading pace becomes a bit slow for an average reader.

• The lede is very well-written with each paragraph standing on its own. I have only one suggestion here:

• Third para, change it has boosted prominence for character pairings such as "Mileven" and "Byler", while also generating opinions from journalistic sites to it has boosted prominence for character pairings such as "Mileven" and "Byler" while also generating opinions from journalistic sites.

• In Conformity Gate § Background and history,

• After the release of the season's second volume on December 25 ... beats in those episodes – the readability of this sentence can be improved. hemingwayapp.com rates the sentence as Post-graduate well that explains why I can read it atleast :)
• Actor Randy Havens, who portrays Mr. Clarke in the show to Actor Randy Havens, who portrayed Mr. Clarke in the show
• Conformity Gate was seen to be an extension of that theory. Which theory?
• deriving from the suffix -gate to and derived from the suffix -gate
• amphibiaaccount was one of the first to present ... one of the first what? viewers? fans?
• Nice use of bracket quotations [...] in the quotes.
• The surge of curious Netflix users seems to characterize all the Netflix users on that day as curious. The word curious hence can be removed.
• change undisclosed plans would only be known by the Duffers and Millie Bobby Brown, to undisclosed plans would only be known to the Duffers and Millie Bobby Brown,
• change January 12, 2026, the day the behind-the-scenes, One Last Adventure: The Making of Stranger Things 5, would be released to January 12, 2026, the day when the behind-the-scenes of One Last Adventure: The Making of Stranger Things 5 would be released

In Conformity Gate § Compiled evidence,

• January 7, 2026 was chosen as the alleged release date of a ninth episode to January 7, 2026 was allegedly chosen as the release date of a ninth episode; I liked the way this suggestion was approached, which is correct.
• Netflix released a teaser clip of what would turn out to be the presentation of its 2026 slate ... Can this part of the sentence be simplified as Netflix released a teaser clip of its 2026 slate ...?
• That date also marked the observance of Orthodox Christmas, following the fifth season's tendency to drop episodes on major holidays to Orthodox Christmas was observed on that date; a pattern seen after the fifth season's tendency to drop episodes on major holidays.
• A video post on Stranger Things's official TikTok page features Havens standing ... Havens who?
• character Will Byers's roll of a die landing on the same number to character Will Byers's die roll landing on the same number
• Following the release of the trailer to the One Last Adventure documentary, to Following the One Last Adventure documentary's trailer release,. Also in the same sentence, which idea was scrapped, the scripts or the Demogorgons? This part can be simplified: potential inclusion of Demogorgons in the final battle, an idea eventually scrapped.
• blurry shot of the documentary as indication. indication of what? the usage of GPT?

In Conformity Gate § Diegetic evidence subsection,

• visual storytelling of artifice. Link artifice.

In Conformity Gate § Cast and crew response,

• series executive producer Shawn Levy joined to series executive producer, Shawn Levy, joined
• He praised the ending and shared his opinion, ... remarking that he to He praised the ending and stated, ... adding that he
• During an event on the sidelines of the 2026 San Diego Comic-Con in July, to In July, during an event on the sidelines of the San Diego Comic-Con,
• he called out confirmation bias, saying ... and revealed ... to he called out confirmation bias, stating ... and also revealed ...

In Conformity Gate § Social science,

• I think the introduction of Mr. Green can be trimmed: Dr. Ricky Green, a research associate on ... Emily Seling and merged with the next two sentences. Also the title (Dr.) can be removed as the subject isn't notable.

Images

Extended content

• The images are all licensed well and are using suitable captions . Also they are used in appropriate places in the article.
• Every image needs an appropriate alt text which didn't seem to have been done here. You can use the caption to fill alt= also. Few satisfies MOS:ALTINCAPTION and others satisfy MOS:ALT.
• Fun question, are these phrases I believe and I think you're dead, I don't know in the last image written by you? It would be cool to know.

Reference check

Extended content

As the sources from which the references were derived vary a lot, I'm going to list them one by one:

• Teen Vogue: Reliable for popular media.
• Newsweek: Borderline reliable but is generally unreliable after 2013.
• Esquire: Its reliability is disputed as per this latest discussion.
• Parade: although doesn't have a WP:RSN, it looks to be reliable as per their editorial policy and about page.
• Inverse: This seems to be a new player in entertainment news category but they look reliable too as shown by their editor team.
• Collider: has an editor team but no editorial policy and one RSN discussion looks to be a bit concerning.
• HOLA! USA: Doesn't have an editorial policy, about page or discussions on RSN. Again I'm keeping this as the editor is a staff writer.
• The Tab: This RSN discussion looks concerning and the staff writer is relatively new going by the ranks of staff editors.
• TV Insider: Reliable as shown by their editorial policy and the author credentials.
• MFR: Looks unreliable as this primary source doesn't seem to do any independent news coverage; they're owned by a third party corporate and also there's no information on its editorial policy, author creds or about page.
• The Direct: Seems new and reliable, having checked their about page which consists of a solid body of staff writers.
• VICE: Prolific magazine with a decent about page but can have reliability issues as per WP:VICE and the article's staff writer being an outside contributor.
• MovieWeb: Looks reliable as shown by their about page and writer creds.
• NME: Ok, this has me worrying; the editor seems to be a non-staff contributor with the only info available on them being their posts. Also no editorial policy or an about page. The only thing saving it is this RSN discussion.
• CBC Kids: Reliable as shown by their about page and also being from a prolific news company.
• The Irish News: Reliable too by their about page and staff writer creds.
• Per WP:FORBESCON, these two sources by Forbes contributors can't be kept in the article.
• SlashFilm: Looks solid with the staff writer creds; and the same can be said for their about page, editorial policy and even a no-AI policy(!). This RSN discussion seems to underwhelm it though.
• ComicBook.com: Seems to be borderline reliable per their about page but this RSN discussion and the author creds show otherwise.
• Tell-Tale TV: Seems to be unreliable as there is no editorial policy and in the about page, the author info descriptions seems to go into personal hobbies or fan culture. Overall, the site looks like a fansite. Not to mention, the article author is a non-staff contributor and also a "blogger".

All the other sources used are reliable, secondary, and have independent coverage such as BBC, USA Today, The Independent, The Guardian etc.

Spotcheck

Extended content

All of the following spotcheck suggestions are based on this revision:

In Conformity Gate § Background and history,

• The third ref from audience reception in Conformity Gate § Footnotes i.e. of HuffPost UK didn't quote any audience reactions hence it can be removed.
• Ref #6 doesn't mention cutgate or describes it as what led to Conformity Gate.

In Conformity Gate § Shutdown and behind-the-scenes,

• This sentence: Ultimately, the theorized episode did not materialize. is uncited. I think the citation used right before this (ref #10) can be reused here.
• In ref #14 or the Parade interview, I didn't find this quote by Berthelsen: "There's a really lovely documentary coming out [...] Which I think is going to be the real deal."

In Conformity Gate § Compiled evidence,

• Ref #19 doesn't verify the thunder strike theory but #17 does. You can move up #19 to cite the previous sentence while keeping #17 to cite the last one.
• I can't verify this part in the inline citations: Dungeons & Dragons books reading "X A LIE" vertically—which was debunked as the shot in the finale actually spelt "XAILE". Ok, I saw this in ref #17 which I think you can use here.

In Conformity Gate § Cast and crew response,

• I spotted a typo with the word honesty in the body according to ref #26: it was just real honesty

In Conformity Gate § Popular impact,

• I didn't understand why ref #3 was used to cite this part: Conformity Gate had gone viral. Can you clarify?
• I think ref #30 would be enough to verify the cited sentence. To keep ref #29 to cite these claims, you can add more information from it.
• Same for ref #12 to verify the next sentence instead of keeping #11.
• In the second para, it's given that AI-generated images of Mileven were found in TikTok but in the source it's mentioned as AI-generated videos. Also, the -gate suffix point is not mentioned in ref #2.
• How does ref #37 support the claim: ... views Conformity Gate as having created a sense of conformity of its own.

Others

Extended content

• Earwig report shows 41 per cent similarity but most are false positives as the quotes and series / show names are unavoidable to not mirror the sources.
• The article layout looks good but I'll have to check the MOS:WTW as there is a lot of opinion commentary given here which can slip in some of these words.
• The article is stable with no WP:EW as only the nominator edited and updated it for most of its timespan in the mainspace.

Following suggestions are for MOS:WTW:

• According to MOS:DOUBT, the words apparent and purported expresses doubt in the claims. I'm overlooking alleged as it's usage seems to be done correctly (given it's a fan theory). You need to find a better replacement of the two words that I mentioned above.
• Editorial heavy words such as despite, however can be replaced. Pushback accepted
• said is used seven times in the body. According to MOS:SAID, it can be made more varying. It's used four times now but that's not so much now.

For the prose layout, you can do one more suggestion:

• The last two paragraphs in Conformity Gate § Shutdown and behind-the-scenes section can be merged together to make it of only 3 paragraphs. Pushback accepted again

Discussion

@Brynn Who Likes Editing: I have posted my suggestions above. Ping me when they're done. If you have any doubts, let me know. Good luck. Sddarealone (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The source itself, Collider, says @amphibiaaccount was among the first to lay out the idea of an extended or hidden finale. I'll say in the Wikipedia article "one of the first people". In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:11, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: I did all of them except for two.

For changing January 12, 2026, the day the behind-the-scenes, One Last Adventure: The Making of Stranger Things 5, would be released to January 12, 2026, the day when the behind-the-scenes of One Last Adventure: The Making of Stranger Things 5 would be released, I did not remove the commas nor did I add the word "of" since One Last Adventure is the behind-the-scenes and saying "the behind-the-scenes of One Last Adventure" would be ungrammatical.

I did not change January 7, 2026 was chosen as the alleged release date of a ninth episode to January 7, 2026 was allegedly chosen as the release date of a ninth episode because Jan 7 was the date chosen by fans, and that fact is not alleged. What is alleged is the potential ninth episode, so the word "alleged" should be a descriptor of "release date of a ninth episode" and not "chosen". (However I understand what you mean and so I changed the wording here.) In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:25, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: Yup, I wrote those texts in the last image. It actually says "I think she's dead, I don't know" which is a reference to what Sadie Sink said, at I think The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, about whether she thought Eleven was alive. It's a fun little Easter egg for Stranger Things fans. And the yellow and blue coloring is also a reference to the Russian code Robin cracked in season 3, which was then adopted by the fandom, especially fans of the ship Byler, and soon it became a bit of color theory and evidence for Conformity Gate. I tried to be quite intentional while drawing the last image since it was created specifically for this page, and I hope the fandom will like it. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 20:56, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I have checked the progress just now and the suggestions were done really well. The prose check should be completed by today and I'll follow it up with others if possible. Your fandom knowledge on this TV series is very cool; I'm a fan of The Vampire Diaries so I can relate to it. Sddarealone (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brynn Who Likes Editing: I have completed doing the prose check and the later sections read well so I caught only a few issues to suggest if any. I'll be doing the references next which should also bring the NPOV concerns in order as I've seen in fan theories here. Ping me when the suggestions are done. Sddarealone (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Sorry to ask, but why is criterion 3b on hold? In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:38, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Due to a fairly high number of pop culture references, I wanted to take a re-look just to know if most of the body is related to the article subject or not. WP:COATRACK has been an issue with 3b in WP:GAN from what I've seen. Sddarealone (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm done all your suggestions. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:47, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: Pinging you like you asked In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:49, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Well done. I shall continue with rest of the review very soon. The wait will be worth it :) Sddarealone (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I made some bold edits to the article today. Let me know your thoughts. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 15:51, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

You struggled with rewording the sentence from Parade but I have to appreciate the patience you displayed here. A little thing you could do is rewrite the initial part of the sentence as Parade's Liz Declan commenting on the Conformity Gate stated, ... Also there isn't a need to use bracket quotes. You can write the full part into it: "While the documentary has therefore led to a new wave of negative responses and criticism, it ...". Sddarealone (talk) 04:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

 Done Also I did some more bold edits and I think the article benefits a lot from it. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:48, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brynn Who Likes Editing: I have updated the review with a complete reference check. Ping me when it's done. I'll continue with the spotcheck next following which very little will be left to review. Good luck. Sddarealone (talk) 19:28, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not done but I've made a few changes. Looking back, the article had a lot more OR and unreliable sources that I previously thought. This is probably because when I published it into the mainspace, I cited seven social media sites. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:36, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

That's alright as fan theories largely have their discussion on WP:USERG sources such as Reddit, X (or Twitter), Facebook etc. It's just not suitable to be kept in a GA-class article and the editors at AfD are going to tear it apart usually on the basis of WP:GNG. My suggestions will hence clear this benchmark. Good luck on completing all the ref check suggestions. Sddarealone (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi again! I've implemented some of your suggestions, and I'll continue to work on them. However I think that my studies and also my self-care might be interfering a bit, so please bear with me on this GA review. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:41, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: I've done your suggestions, let me know what you think. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 21:11, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brynn Who Likes Editing: I've re-checked the references you've added and they were done quite well. The Wrap, The Mary Sue, Vulture are all RS. I only doubt about indy100.com being a RS despite it being a website of The Independent as this discussion looks concerning to me. Also the fact that they don't have an editorial policy and that the author is a "freelance reporter" doesn't help. Sddarealone (talk) 04:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm done. I replaced it with a source directly from The Independent. Also, I should note that Inverse's parent company is WP:BUSTLE, but I do still think it's reliable. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 05:34, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Also there's a stability concern in the article as one TA is doing WP:EW just to add a word "hoax" in the lede. For such a well grounded fan theory, I find calling it just that would be offensive to many. If you agree with my observations, I can file a report for the issue otherwise leave the lede as it is. Sddarealone (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately this is happening. I reverted their edits again. Please do report it if it persists, or maybe just put it up for semi-protection. I'm planning to nominate it for DYK afterwards so I think that would be good sonner or later. This is the third TA that has engaged in disruptive editing around here since this article's release into mainspace, and by far the most bad. The other two are Special:Contributions/~2026-40001-54 and this comment by another TA.

Also, I believe an established editor recently added two hoax categories into the article. This, however, is in good faith, and these categories were actually in the article beforehand (but I removed them about a month ago because the "hoax" description I used was cited to the Times of India, which is marginally reliable, and I removed that website's citation a while ago. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 05:17, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

I have filed the report as well as requested for page protection. Let's see how it goes. Also thanks for updating the article with all RS; it looks good and I'll be soon doing the spotcheck. Sddarealone (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. But I think we should've requested semi protection a bit later, after the GA review is done or it gets nominated for DYK, because it might be premature now. But this is fine too. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 05:58, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I removed the good-faith hoax categories from the page. Let me know what you think. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 06:01, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

Although not part of the GANR but if it helps with maintaining the WP:NPOV, it was an appropriate move. Anyways, using such terms will require a RfC which will allow for a broader consensus. Moving on :) Sddarealone (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: The third ref from audience reception in Conformity Gate § Footnotes i.e. of HuffPost UK didn't quote any audience reactions hence it can be removed. I changed the wording so now it says "it had a divisive reception, chiefly among audiences" and I think that now the HuffPost source is appropriate because it says the ending was "controversial". In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 07:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

It's great to see you already getting started on the spot-check suggestions. Let me know when you finish them all. I'm doing some layout and WTW checks which should be posted soon. The review is close to finish now. Good luck. Sddarealone (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Editorial heavy words such as despite, however can be replaced. The WTW paragraph for that only applies to comparing two things that are not directly related, creating a false connection between them or making one overshadow the other. Here, my use of despite and however is only for things that are compared with and directly linked within the source, so I don't think it is editorializing. All your other suggestions make sense though, and I'll ping you when I'm done. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:42, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

Also, the -gate suffix point is not mentioned in ref #2. I bundled citations 2 and 7 in the same time so they cover the same general area of text. I think it's fine as it is, and changing it will clutter stuff a bit. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:41, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

If this were a research paper, I would've agreed with your point but since this is an enwiki article the citation should directly verify the claim where it's used per WP:BURDEN. You can move up this citation as well for these reasons. Sddarealone (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

By general area of text, I meant the two sentences immediately prior to the citation. I'll do your suggestion for the meantime though. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 20:32, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: I'm done all your suggestions except the last one where you said The last two paragraphs in Conformity Gate § Shutdown and behind-the-scenes section can be merged together to make it of only 3 paragraphs. I don't think that's necessary as making a very long paragraph won't help readers, I think it's fine as-is. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 21:01, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brynn Who Likes Editing: I have completed all of my suggestions. The suggestions other than spotcheck are given in Talk:Conformity_Gate/GA1#Others. Sddarealone (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

@Brynn Who Likes Editing: Great job on doing almost all the suggestions. You missed a few of them in spotcheck which should be doable. Ping me when they're done. I'm very close to the finish line now :) Sddarealone (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I can't verify this part in the inline citations: Dungeons & Dragons books reading "X A LIE" vertically—which was debunked as the shot in the finale actually spelt "XAILE". Ok, I saw this in ref #17 which I think you can use here Ref 15 from The Guardian is already cited there and it includes that information

Same for ref #12 to verify the next sentence instead of keeping #11.  Done In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 03:39, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

@Sddarealone: Hi! I've checked all your suggestions now, should be good. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 03:40, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

I've re-read the article and it is ready to be of GA-class. This was one of the most discussed GA reviews I've done in a while. Thanks for all your efforts, Brynn. You did a great job. Sddarealone (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.