Talk:Zombie (The Cranberries song)/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: Igordebraga (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

More than happy to take this one on. This has been one of my favourite grunge songs for my whole life, seeing it sung by Ireland fans at the Rugby World Cup last year gave me chills. This is a long monster of an article, so it has taken me quite a few days to write this review, I hope you'll bare with me as I go over it all and I hope my comments are helpful. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Background

• I think the citation to the Doris Lessing article for the Telegraph should be cut. It's a very provocative title/article and doesn't add anything not already covered by the other, more neutral sources.
• "More than 3,500 people died and thousands more were injured." I'm having trouble verifying this specific number with the sources you provided. There are verified sources for this information in the article about The Troubles, so consider using a citation to McEvoy 2008 instead.
• "Republican and Unionist paramilitaries killed thousands of people" This repeats information already mentioned above.
• "Over 10,000 bomb attacks were perpetrated by paramilitary groups in Ireland and England" Cited sources only mention bomb attacks in the six counties of Northern Ireland. If you're going to talk about bomb attacks in both Ireland and England (which is relevant to the song), you should find sources that reference bomb attacks throughout both.
• "The song was written in response to [...]" All of the cited sources in this paragraph discuss the bombing, but none of them mention the song, with a few of the cited sources having been published before the song was released. This bit about the song should be moved to after the details of the bombing, so that it can introduce the subsequent quote from O'Riordan.
• While I was in the middle of writing my review, I noticed that someone had added some original research as an explanatory footnote in the block quote.[1] I went ahead and removed this, as I thought it was just speculation and had no place in this kind of an encyclopedic article.[2] Hope this is ok.
• Spotcheck: [15] Verified.
• Consider going over this section again and seeing where it could be tightened up. Focus on the information that feeds directly into what we know about the song. There are some details that may be necessary to understanding the Troubles or the Warrington bombing, but are extraneous to the song itself. (Leaving this up to you, if you don't see anything that could be made more concise, that's also fine)

Composition

• "a song that reflected upon the event" This is a new section, so specify what the event is (the Warrington bombing yes?)
• Spotcheck: [15][16] The Grunge.com source verifies the first sentence, but doesn't talk about O'Riordan composing the chords on her acoustic guitar, so it should be moved inline with the sentence it's verifying. The Songwriting Magazine source verifies the whole thing.
• Spotcheck: [17][15] Verified.
• "Writing the core chords on her acoustic guitar, O'Riordan returned to Ireland and continued to write the song after returning to her apartment after a night out" This reads a bit odd. Rephrase "Writing" to "Having written".
• As this article uses British English, "apartment" should be replaced with "flat", which is also used in the cited sources.
• "The lyrics and chords of "Zombie" were written initially on an acoustic guitar by O'Riordan alone late that night" Why are we repeating this same information?
• "without hindrance" Huh? What would have hindered it?
• "governed by no inhibitions" What?
  • Spotcheck: Source says "I found it very easy to write lyrics when I was younger because I had no inhibitions – they just came pouring out. I find as I get older it’s more difficult: you develop fears and you go, ‘What will people think of this?’ But it’s important not to think too much about what people will think, because then you’ll never write!" I see. So you've chopped up the quote into smaller pieces, but tried to keep the same structure in the wikivoice prose, which has led to it being quite messy. I think this sentence needs to be rewritten because it reads very odd right now.
• Link to Mungret.
• "observed that" Observed is an odd choice of word here. Maybe "recalled"?
• Spotcheck: [20][19] You're using the same words that Lawler used, but not using quotation marks. Either add quotation marks for his words or rewrite it into your own.
• Spotcheck: [18] Verified.
• What's up with the quote in the citation to Analogue Music? What does Analogue's writers' publication credits have to do with anything in this article?

Production and release

• "The sound came organically" Here "came organically" should be in quotation marks, as it's O'Riordan's own words.
• "while raising the volume" Cited source doesn't appear to mention this.
• "features a foggy, sludgy electric guitars sound" This is a unique description that I can't find basis for in the cited sources (it's not wrong, just not verified). Think this bit could be cut so it goes "recorded during the grunge era, represents a radical depature [...]"
• Spotcheck: [29] Verified. Although the bit where she's quoting her lyrics "It's not me, it's not my family" should be in italics.
• "O'Riordan had been the focus of a battle over censorship" Calling it "censorship" approaches original interpretation. The rest of this sentence also gets a bit too closely paraphrased for comfort. Consider a wee rewrite.
• Spotcheck: [31][30] Verified. The quote "politically urgent" comes specifically from the Rolling Stone source.
• "[...] on the path to IRA's historic [...]" Should be "the IRA's"
• Is there anything that connects "Zombie" with the ceasefire announcement? Because neither of the cited sources about the ceasefire mention the song or The Cranberries. If there's not, then this reads to me like novel synthesis and should be cut.
• "as well as No Need to Argue the following month" Should specify that No Need to Argue is the album.
• Spotcheck: [38] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [39] Verified.

Music and lyrics

• Spotcheck: [42][43] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [44][45] Verified BTRtoday, but I had a bit of trouble verifying The Great Rock Discography. I now realise it's because there's an error in your citation, which lists its year of publication as 1998 but says it's the first edition. I now realise that it's actually referring to the fourth edition, in which I've managed to verify the claim at the give page 169. Please correct this detail and consider adding a link to its Internet Archive copy, for easier future verification.[3]
• Spotcheck: [17][37] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [27] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [21][37] Verified, although these are each verifying different parts of the sentence. The Analogue Music citation should be moved in line with "responsible for the heavier sound," so The Telegraph is left to verify the specific quote at the end of the sentence.
• Spotcheck: [18] Verified.
• Ed Power, Graham Fuller and Sonia Saraiya should all be introduced, even a small introduction like "Irish journalist Ed Power" or "Writing for The Telegraph, Ed Power" would be helpful.
• Spotcheck: [37] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [46] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [47] Verified.

Singing voice

• Spotcheck: [48][36] Verified in The New Republic, but The New York Times source doesn't appear to mention that she's yodelling.
• Spotcheck: [48] Verified almost everything, but it doesn't mention falsetto. I think you can drop that, as "head voice" already includes falsetto within it.
• I worry that your paraphrasing a bit too closely from The New Republic source, consider a wee rewrite for this bit.
• Spotcheck: [51] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [52] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [53][36] The New York Times verifies this, although it specifies that she has a Limerick accent. Time doesn't appear to reference her accent at all.
  • "O’Riordan’s yodeling vocals, sung in her thick brogue..."
• Spotcheck: [54] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [55] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
• Ah, Sonia Saraiya is introduced here. Her introduction should come with her first mention.
• Spotcheck: [47] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified.
• As this section is about O'Riordan's singing voice, I think you could safely cut out the first two sentences about the Cranberries, they don't really say much about the song itself anyway.

Critical reception

Praise

• Spotcheck: [56] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [57] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [29] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [58] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [59] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [38] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [46] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [60] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [61] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [62] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [63] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [65][66] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [29] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [67] Verified.

Criticism=

• Spotcheck: [68] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [70] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [68] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [71] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [72] Verified.
• "O’Riordan's mother Eileen has stated, [...]" Why is this in the criticism section? It doesn't seem particularly critical.

Accolades

• Spotcheck: [73][74] I'm not sure where "Seal, The Offspring and TLC" are mentioned, but they don't appear to be in either of the cited sources. Billboard only says that Zombie won the best song award, while Junkee only mentions Michael Jackson as a notable artist who was beaten to this award by the Cranberries.

As a sporting anthem

• Spotcheck: [75] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [76] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [68][77] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [76] Verified.

Chart performance

• Spotcheck: [20][74] uDiscover says it topped the charts in 10 countries, while Junkee only says it went to #1 in "a number of countries", so I'm not sure where the "eight countries" number is coming from.
• Spotcheck: [78][20] uDiscover just says it went to #1 on the Billboard charts, only Billboard itself verifies the number of weeks. Consider moving the citations more in line.
• Spotcheck: [74][79] The quote that Australians were "particularly gripped" by the song is from Junkee, so that source should be cited inline with the quote. Its number 1 spot on the Triple J charts is verified by both sources.
• "one of the largest public music polls in the world," Is this relevant? Think this could be cut.
• Spotcheck: [74] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [81][82] ARIA itself says seven weeks, but ABC says eight.
• Spotcheck: [83] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [84] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [85] Source seems to say it spent 42 weeks on the charts, not 24.
• Spotcheck: [39] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [86] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [87] I'm not seeing anything about it seeing a sales surge or being played "after every time the Irish team scored" in the cited source.
• Spotcheck: [88] Verified.
• Is there any reason why this and the "Charts" section are kept separate? To me it seems like they'd work well integrated into a single section.
  • It's standard song article structuring, a prose section for commercial performance (even renamed the section) and a table with chart numbers.

Music video

Background and production

• Spotcheck: [89] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [90] Source just says 1994, not October.
• Spotcheck: [29][90] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [91][92] Neither of these sources appear to mention Doug Friedman, HSI or Belfast.
• Spotcheck: [90] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [19] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [93] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [29][90] Most of this information doesn't appear to be in these sources. Only Irish Central mentions Los Angeles, but not the length of time, it being colour or filmed on a sound stage.

Synopsis

• Spotcheck: [91][92] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [37] Source verifies that it's the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders but doesn't say that it's "(as evident from their thin red line tactical recognition flashes)".
• Spotcheck: [91][92] Sources verify murals, but not their specific contents "(IRA, UDA, UFF, UVF, Bobby Sands)."

BBC and RTÉ ban

• Spotcheck: [94][95] Only the Belfast Telegraph gives the reason of "violent images", the Michigan Daily just says it was banned.
• Spotcheck: [29][94] Both sources verify its banning by RTE and the broadcast of an edited version. Only the BBC says the band disowned the edited video and only the Michigan Daily mentions the quote and the initial footage. Sources should be cited more inline.
• "The song reached No. 14 on the UK Singles Chart." Huh? Why is that mentioned here? Shouldn't this be in the "Chart performance" section?

Reception and accolades

• Spotcheck: [96] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [97] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [98] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [63] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [93] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [99][91] Both sources verify it reaching 1 billion views and that it was the first song by an Irish band. Only RTE verifies that it was the sixth song from the 20th century, but neither of them appear to mention it being the first female-led song.
• Spotcheck: [91] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [100][101] Verified.
• "In November 2022, the song was voted as the greatest Irish hit" Shouldn't this be in the critical reception section? Why is it in the section about the video?

Live performances

• Spotcheck: [30] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [47] This verifies the bit about ethnic cleansing, but it doesn't appear to verify the bit where it says "Towards the end of "Zombie", O'Riordan embodied what it meant to her".
• Spotcheck: [104] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [29] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [105] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [106][107] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [108] This verifies that Electra Strings recorded with The Cranberries, but doesn't appear to mention the acoustic performance of Zombie or its air date.
• Spotcheck: [111] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [112] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [24] Source says seven months, not eight.

Censorship

• Spotcheck: [113] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [114] Verified.
• You should probably mention that the contestant who performed the censored version was Dilana, who is notable in her own right.

Formats and track listings

• No notes.

Charts

• No notes.

Certifications and sales

• No notes.

Bad Wolves cover

• Spotcheck: [188][189] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [190] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [191] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [192] Cited source doesn't appear to mention two extra stanzas. Am I missing something?
• Spotcheck: [193] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [194] Verified, although it isn't immediately clear upon reading. This approaches synth, but I understand the need to put the date in there.
• Spotcheck: [195] Verified, but again, this is confusing as the cited source is just about Dan Waite being director of Eleven Seven, but doesn't mention Bad Wolves at all. Given both of the subsequent sources mention that Dan Waite is the director of their record label, I think this citation could safely be cut.
• Spotcheck: [196][190] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [197] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [190][193] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [190] "dream come true" doesn't appear to be in the cited source.
• Spotcheck: [193] Verified. Also, this mentions that Vext said "one of my childhood dreams was about to come true". So might be worth cutting the previous citation and putting this quote in instead.
• Spotcheck: [198][199] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [200][201] Sources seem to disagree about the specifics of what she said. Billboard says she called it "fucking awesome", while TMZ say "f****** terribly good". Honestly, you should probably cut the TMZ source, per WP:TMZ.
• Spotcheck: [202] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [203] Verified.
• "in the bathroom" "the bathroom" is a little ambiguous, as it could mean her hotel bathroom or (given the recent mention) the studio. You should clarify that it was her hotel bathroom.
• Spotcheck: [202] Verified.
• Again, I'd cut the citation to TMZ. Billboard already mentions them.
• Spotcheck: [204][192] Neither of the sources appear to describe it as the second single on their album. They don't explicitly say that it was released without O'Riodan's vocals, but I think that can be safely inferred.
• Spotcheck: [205] Doesn't appear to mention its position on the Hot 100.
• Spotcheck: [206] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [207] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [208] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [209] Verified.
• This is a lot of descriptors for Kovac, I think you could cut at least one of them for concision. Like do you need to mention he was both the Cranberries' manager and also their manager at the time of Zombie's release?
• As you're citing a podcast for Konkiel's quote, it would be helpful if you could provide a timestamp for where he says this.

Music video

• Spotcheck: [211] Verifies that it was directed by Isham, but not the rest of the details.
• Spotcheck: [212] Most of these details aren't in the cited source.
• Honestly I find it a bit odd that the synopsis for the cover's music video is longer than the synopsis for the original, especially considering the cover video is (in my opinion) far less visually or thematically interesting than the original. I think the only bit that really needs to be covered is the bit in the cited source, that: "the actress playing Dolores gold covered character, was smearing gold paint on a plate of glass while Bad Wolves vocalist Tommy Vext was singing to her from the other side. At one point in the video, the character wrote 1-15-18, the day Dolores O’Riordan passed away."

Charts

• No notes.

Certificates and sales

• No notes.

Miley Cyrus cover

• Spotcheck: [236] I have no idea where this bit comes from: "that performance quickly became viral online with individuals appreciating Cyrus' fine, raw vocals" It's not in the source, also why are we praising Cyrus' "fine, raw vocals" in Wikivoice?
• Spotcheck: [237] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [238] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [239] Verified.
• Honestly, I am not getting why this cover gets its own separate section and isn't another entry in the "Other notable covers" section. The Bad Wolves cover had an important history to it, with its direct connection to O'Riordan, but I'm just not getting it for this one. I think we might be giving it a bit undue weight with a whole section, this could be a couple sentences long and in the subsequent section.

Other notable covers

• No real notes. Spotcheck shows it's all verified info. Mostly I'm just surprised at the number of techno, pop and dance covers of this song...

Lead section

• I don't think we need a citation for The Cranberries being an alternative rock band. That this song is a piece of alt rock is already established throughout the body of the article.
• This lead section is absolutely not long enough, given the extraordinary length of this article. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, this should really be three or (ideally) four decently-size paragraphs. But I think this glosses over a lot of really vital information that is presented in the body of the article.

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:

   There's some minor prose issues, mostly in the earlier sections, but nothing not easily fixable.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The lead section really needs to be longer, per the manual of style.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   All references are properly formatted. It does strike me as odd that Gulla is given Sfn formatting, rather than being an integrated inline citation, given it's the only source that gets this treatment. I'd recommend reformatting that source, but honestly, this is a minor quibble.

   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):

   There are some problems with sources not being cited inline with the information they're citing, and a couple cases where I think the wrong source is being cited, but everything is given proper sourcing.

   C. It contains no original research:

   There's a few cases of synthesis and possible original research, noted above. I think these should be more or less easy to fix though.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig mostly flags properly attributed quotes,[4] so no issue there. I noticed a couple cases of close paraphrasing that should be addressed, but these are easily rewritten.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Addresses everything so thoroughly that I would be surprised if it missed anything.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I think there are a couple cases where it goes a bit off focus and gives undue weight to some things that could be more concise.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Given the subject matter of the song, I think it's impressively neutral, not taking a clear stance one way or the other. It highlights praise and criticisms with I think the weight they're due.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   There have been a few reversions over the past couple months, but nothing major like an edit war. I don't see this changing substantially from day-to-day.

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:

   Album covers have valid fair-use rationale.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Album covers are clearly relevant. If anything, I think this article could do with a few more images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well this took me a good long while to review, but I'm through it now, I learned a lot while reading this. For the most part, I very much enjoyed reading this article, but there are some things that currently hold it back from passing the GA criteria. It needs a longer lead section, citations need to be checked and brought in line and possible cases of synth and undue weight dealt with. But I think this could get over the line with a bit of work. Feel free to ping me when you've addressed my comments and if you have any further questions about them. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Think I addressed all the concerns (and even others you hadn't asked for, as while rewriting I saw fit to cut down, rearrange and expand parts), see if I missed anything and if any new additions are well written enough. igordebraga ≠ 06:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic work! Thanks for seeing to everything so thoroughly. I've noticed a couple things that need tweaking, but they're so minor I can do those myself. I'm more than happy to pass it now. Thanks again! :) --Grnrchst (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2024 (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.