Wikipedia

Talk:Zorra (Nebulossa song)/GA1

< Talk:Zorra (Nebulossa song)
Latest comment: 7 months ago by Grnrchst in topic GA review

GA review

edit
Latest comment: 7 months ago40 comments2 people in discussion
PASSED
Issues with prose, verifiability, broadness and neutrality were all addressed, bring the article in line with GA criteria. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

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: Nascar9919 (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 12:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I remember well the discourse that this song stirred up last year, so I'm happy to take this one on for review to get a fuller picture of it. I'm reviewing this as part of Women in Green's 9th edit-a-thon and the Good Article backlog drive. Apologies that it took so long for a review to materialise. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Comments

  • I notice there's no section about the song's legacy, whether it's had any longer-term appeal and how (or if) it affected Spain's choice of song for Eurovision 2025. Is this something that sources from the past year have written about? Worth checking.

Background and composition

  • ""Zorra" was written and produced by the members of Nebulossa" As this is the first time it's being mentioned in the body of the article, Nebulossa should be linked and introduced (i.e. as "synth-pop duo Nebulossa").
  • Spotcheck: [2] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [3] Verified.
  • "It was therefore brought into question as potential infringement of Eurovision regulations" By whom? Who raised this issue to the EBU?
  • Spotcheck: [4] Verified.
  • Worth linking to Misogyny for "misogynistic insult".
  • Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
  • "with the lyrics criticising a society that views women in a misogynistic light "just for being women"" I think this uses a lot of words to say a relatively simple thing. Saying women are affected by misogyny "just for being women" is a bit tautological, as misogyny is specific to women. This could be reduced down to "with the lyrics criticising society for misogyny" or "with the lyrics criticising a misogynistic society", or something similar.
  • Spotcheck: [7] Verified the use of "black sheep", but I couldn't find any analysis of it being used "to connect and sympathise with men who have also felt ostracised from society in similar ways". Mark Dasousa didn't seem to say this explicitly in the cited source. While it might be an understandable interpretation, this does brush up against original research.
  • There's understandably a lot about the lyrics in this section, but do any sources talk about the composition of the music? Description of what the song actually sounds like could be helpful for a reader.

Music video and promotion

  • "released on the same day as the song's release" When was this? What day?
  • "Manuela Trasobares, who has been tagged with the negative stereotypes of a zorra" By whom? The use of passive voice here is troubling.
  • Spotcheck: [5][9] The description of Trasobares as a "zorra" does not appear to be supported by either of the cited sources. Is this another original interpretation? If this can't be verified by an inline citation, then it would be especially problematic for us to be describing her with this potentially offensive term in wikivoice.
  • What else happens in the music video? Is the glass throwing the only notable thing about it?
  • "To further promote the song" We haven't mentioned them promoting it up until this point, so "further" should be cut.
  • "and at a Rome nightclub 26 April" -> "and at a Rome nightclub on 26 April".
  • All of these concerts are verified.
  • "Covers" might not be the right header for this subsection, as most of this is about translations of the lyrics for subtitles, with only one sentence about a remix (not a "cover"). The subsection header could probably be dropped, as it just creates confusion and the broader section isn't particularly long anyway.
  • This might be my own regional bias showing, but I would have expected the Polònia parody "Facha" to be mentioned in the covers section. It got quite the reaction at the time, becoming the show's most viewed sketch. See elDiario, La Vanguardia, El Español, Cadena SER, etc.
  • Added. I will admit that I was a bit lost trying to understand what the song actually parodied. Feel free to let me know what I got wrong if I did. I do apologize as I am most definitely not familiar with Spanish politics on this level. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 08:35, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Everything in "Covers" subsection verified.

Critical reception

Spanish media and personalities
  • "a very brave proposal [and] very funny.... I hope it works at Eurovision and that they understand the bitches that we are." Again, as this is coming from a Spanish-language source, per the Manual of Style on non-English quotations, it needs to be made clear that this is our own translation. Adding the original quote to the citation would help.
  • A title translation should be added to the first El Mundo citation.
  • A title translation should be added to the first El País citation.
  • "Pedro Sánchez, the current prime minister of Spain" This could easily become a dated statement some time in the near future. As he was prime minister at the time, I think you could just say "the prime minister of Spain", and it would be understood.
  • "admitted that" I don't think "admitted" is the right word here, as he is attributing favour for a different song to the "fachosphere". There should be another synonym for "said" that can be used here.
  • "the "fachosphere" would have preferred another competing song" Is this referring to a specific song, or that they just didn't like "Zorra" and would have preferred any other song?
  • "Nebulossa is among the best... they have managed to get the audience... to shout: 'I'm even sluttier'. Good for Nebulossa." Again, as this is a translation of a quote from a Spanish-language source, we should include the original quote in the citation.
  • "Criticism was levied against "Zorra" by feminist personalities." I feel like this may need some qualification. Just saying "feminist personalities" implies this was a unanimous opinion of the feminist movement, but I remember there being more of a debate (although the majority definitely aligned against it).
  • "banal deformation of feminist demands" Again, original Spanish-language quote should be provided in the citation.
  • Another El Mundo citation that needs a title translation.
  • "we did not intend to make an anthem, the surprise has been that people have appropriated the message" Again, original Spanish-language quote should be provided in the citation.
  • All spotchecks verified.
  • "In a Wiwibloggs review containing several reviews from several critics" Is there a critical consensus that we could be mentioning here, aside from the numerical and listical ratings?
  • I think this section could do with a few more reviews from music critics, in order to balance it out with the previous section.
  • All spotchecks verified.

Eurovision Song Contest

Benidorm Fest 2024
  • Spotcheck:[36][37] It seems like most of this is verified in the second source, but not in the first. These citations should be moved inline with the specific information they verify, rather than bundling them together at the end of the paragraph.
  • "a demoscopic jury" What is this?
  • "expert jury" Experts in what?
  • I don't believe any source ever actually said what they were "experts" in. Ended up clarifying how many members are in the jury and who they represent. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 22:41, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • "earning the top position in both the public televote and the expert jury" How did perform with the demoscopic jury?
At Eurovision
  • Spotcheck: [48] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [49] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [52][53][54] "cabaret" descriptor verified in second and third source.
  • Side comment: "a background inspired by the 1927 film Metropolis [was] shown to represent [...] the city of Benidorm" Lmao, savage.
  • Spotcheck: [57] Verified.
  • Again, original Spanish-language quotes should be provided in the citations.
  •  Done.

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose is sometimes unclear and inconcise in places.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    The Manual of Style on non-English quotes should be reviewed and original quotes inserted where necessary.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Some citations could still do with title translations.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    One case where citations are bundled at the end of a paragraph, rather than inline with the specific information being verified. All sources are generally reliable.
    C. It contains no original research:
    A couple cases where it appears there is some novel interpretation going on.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No issues as far as I could see on spotchecks. Earwig only flags clearly-attributed quotes.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    A bit more detail could be added to some sections, and it could do with a Legacy section if there is enough material for one.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    Very focused, without any unnessecary detail.
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    One case where it approaches non-neutrality.
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No major changes to the article since nomination. Last revert happened over a year ago and it was quite minor.
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Cover image has valid non-free use rationale. Photographs were original work and published under CreativeCommons licenses.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    All images are relevant to the topic.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    This article is close to passing, but it could use some work on prose, verifiability and broadness before it safely meets all of the GA criteria. Feel free to ping me once these comments are addressed and/or if you have any questions, and I'll be happy to take another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
@Grnrchst: My apologies for taking so long with this. University and NASCAR has been keeping me extremely busy. I finally got some time on my hands and I'm happy to have gotten to this. Let me know if you need anything else from me. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 07:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
No bother at all! This is all looking good, I'm happy to pass the review now. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zorra_(Nebulossa_song)/GA1&oldid=1353878165"