Talk:Zombie (The Cranberries song)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protest song[edit]

How can I link to the specific subsection ("violence and guns") in "protest songs"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdob (talk • contribs) 12:00, 19 March 2004 (UTC)[reply]

[[List_of_protest_songs#Protest_songs_concerning_guns_and_violence]] would make List_of_protest_songs#Protest_songs_concerning_guns_and_violence and [[List_of_protest_songs#Protest_songs_concerning_guns_and_violence|more descriptive title]] would make more descriptive title. In this case, protest song is a more appropriate link, it has a description about the term. On the lower left you can find "What links here". If you add Zombie to the list page, it'll automatically appear there. Also see Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Oh, and you can sign your input (usually only on talk pages) --~~~~, which is also on a button (skin I use anyway) --Dyss 01:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A protest against what? All I heard is a woman shrieking "yehukahuka ZOMBIE ZOMBIE!" over and over again.Pookleblinky 12:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is about the conflicts in Northern Ireland known as The Troubles.
http://www.lyrics007.com/Cranberries%20Lyrics/Zombie%20Lyrics.html
When replying on a talk page, most people use a ":" before the reply so that it looks like this. Not a big problem on a small page like this, but in large pages it can get confusing. --Dyss 00:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Erm, a protest against what? Its obvious, just generally against the conflict "its the same old thing, sinse 1916"- There had been no progress towards resoloving the troubles. and how the British media and public portayed the southern irish as supporting the IRA, when they really wanted the conflict resolved. "can't you see it not me, its not my family, in your head they are fighting" this is the "zombie" state of mind she refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.125.9.4 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is about two boys that were killed in an IRA bombing in 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.47.76 (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:The Cranberries - Zombie.jpg[edit]

Image:The Cranberries - Zombie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Donny (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video image[edit]

I uploaded and linked a screenshot from the music video for this song. I also added fair use on the image page for this use. I feel it better shows how the singer is made-up to look very much like the saint mentioned in the article section. Feel free to shift and/or shrink the image in the article for better flow. I did not include a caption but go ahead if you think it needs one.

Kresock (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smashing Pumpkins' Disarm[edit]

Are there any articles noting the similarity between these songs? The chord progressoin's the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.244.91 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description of music video[edit]

I remove the part where it describes the makeup as "Egyptian". Here it is from the article, "She wears an Egyptian headdress as well as Egyptian eye makeup, reminiscent of the Egyptian Goddess Isis. Standing in front of a cross, she's surrounded by golden children with bows and arrows". An encyclopedia should not TELL the reader what it THINKS she is reminiscent of.

A reader can watch the video and come to that conclusion on their own. Its original research; its taking purely from whoever wrote it THOUGHT and got the impression. For me, personally, she looks nothing like Isis. And her headdress is not Egyptian, its "Egyptian-looking". Isis actually doesn't even wear a headdress like that, if you like at ancient illustrations. It is as if someone saw The Mummy and thought, "Wow, she looks like what I saw from the mummy". But that is not a valid source.

What people THINK is Egyptian and what is actually Egyptian are too different things. Someone familiar with Egypt might read this and get the wrong impression. Its original research. Furthermore, to say that she is reminiscent of the goddess Isis is to imply that that is what the artist was going for, which unless cited really doesn't hold water. Again, a viewer can interpret that for themselves. Lol, also, the children were silvery, not golden. Saying she is in gold makeup and is surrounded by silver children in front of a cross is fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really like how passionately you feel about this! I agree with you, though I think the word the original poster was looking for was Cleopatra-like. The gold colour was to emulate the impression of King Tut's death mask and the hair was a reference to several made up ideas of what Cleopatra looked like. At the end of the day, yep, "An encyclopedia should not TELL the reader what it THINKS she is reminiscent of". Youtryandyoutry (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in other media[edit]

The part about the Youtuber referencing this song doesn't seem like it should be in here. It seems to be unwarranted promotion. Doesn't seem worthy of inclusion and doesn't have any source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:5803:3660:71FC:44C3:4DC3:8DC1 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Zombie (song). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Composition[edit]

There's a dubious section here called Composition which declares the beats-per-minute of the song at 84 bpm. The album recording (at 82 bpm) is faster than the live performances of the song, which tended to be in th 72-75 bpm range. It's actually the reason the live performances dragged, in my not-asked-for opinion. I'm removing the mention of the bpm altogether because it's not consistent across all performances of the song and it's just a weird statement. That leaves the fact that it's in E minor. Is that relevant? I'm deleting that too cause having a whole section just to tell people it's in E minor is a bad way of presenting this information. Correct me if I'm wrong though. We could just write that in somewhere else in the article. Here. I'll do that now. Cheers Youtryandyoutry (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time the song released[edit]

I think these a mistake and the song released only at 1994, not 1993 Nirvadel (talk) 10:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Parry with the covers?[edit]

This section was moved into a new Legacy section which usually appears at the end of the article at Wikipedia. The table of contents for the covers has now been changed to a Renditions section. I think the Legacy section should come after it. The article deserves a Legacy section. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ErnestKrause: Hi. Colin Parry is the father of the IRA victim, he is not "a legacy", it's a comment that he made after O'Riordan death. It should stay with the Cranberries, not below the covers; it's embarrassing. Colin Parry with Bad Wolves and Miley Cyrus? The singing voice sub-section is about the yodeling, her technique, and her voice, you can't merge with the critical reception of the whole song. I spent a lot of time on this page. Oroborvs (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your really nice efforts on this page make me think twice about your comment. I think it might make sense to have a short history section at the top of the article, possibly by separating the background from the composition in the top section of the current article. That way the first paragraph currently in background could open the new history section and it could be followed by pulling up the sections for both Censorship and Colin Parry to the top of the article. In theory, at least, that sounds like it might give these 2 aspects of the article more emphasis and provide better context for the article as a whole. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Ok if you think that will improve the quality of the page. Cranberries' specific content logically cannot fit under the covers section, since everything belongs to the historical context of the original song. I would like you not to delete any text unless it is poorly written. The section about her voice is very precise (chest voice, head voice, falsetto) and corresponds to the descriptions found in Yodeling. For the #Legacy section, I don't see what content, and where you would like to place it. Covers should be notable as you know. And the quote box in gray should be moved to #Production and release, I think. Oroborvs (talk) 19:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a look at what I had in mind since you mentioned the possibility of something to improve the page. I have made a Separate section of background and composition into 2 sections, and merged legacy, censorship and performances sections to provide new structure for new history section. I think it gives a better table of contents to the article as a whole and you can adapt and adjust things to make any improvements you feel enhance the article ErnestKrause (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Users do not own Wikipedia pages, anyone can improve the page as long as we follow Wikipedia's policies. For my part, I have followed a natural chronology to help the reader, and when I worked on the page I based myself on WP:SONGS (Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs) and on the FA-Class song articles which demonstrate that they have a #Live performances section at the end of their page, only reserved for songs played in concerts, such as: Something (Beatles song), City of Blinding Lights, Push the Button (Sugababes song), or 4 Minutes. I appreciate your involvement and the creation of the first three sections (#History and background, #Composition, #Production and release) which is great, but merging the live performances with the IRA bombing as an introduction to the article is non-compliant. Oroborvs (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section put together follows Wikipedia policy for a comprehensive history section to appear at the start of the article, and to be a comprehensive version of the history with its ups and downs. Since this is a protest song, the ups and downs I think are unavoidable. It might be helpful if you could look at the Louder sound interview with The Cranberries dealing fully with this song. I tried to find a link to it though I could not find an active link. Possibly you already know this article in Louder sound. Regarding the status of the article now, it is currently marked as C-class on the talk page and I would be interested to know if you would like to enhance and improve it some more. You have over 1000 edits here and its important for me to know if you would like to move the article forward. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Hi. I did not see the article in Louder sound, but thank you for the info. I assume your good faith, but now there is a chronological issue in the article. The #History and background section should end under O'Riordan's quote, which contains a summary of the Troubles, the IRA bombing, and her feelings about it. Then the band wrote the song: #Composition → #Production and release → #Reception. Live performances section at the end of the Cranberries' content as it appears on the FA-Class song articles, which makes sense since a band first wrote a song and they perform it afterward. Even though it's a protest song, it's still "just a song" played at concerts, it has no weight compared to a 30 years war and all the deaths; that's why live performances should not be merged with that. Also, the death of an artist and the reactions that follow always appear at the bottom of the body, not at the top. That is why it should return to its original shape with the #Live performances, #Censorship, and #Colin Parry sections at the bottom while keeping what you did: #History and background, #Composition, #Production and release. Although it was marked as C-class, the article was stable for months and already had good article criteria from a clarity point of view. It is a content dispute. I want to suggest interaction with a third opinion → Wikipedia:Third opinion (edit: #Active disagreements). Oroborvs (talk) 11:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the purpose here is to improve the article, then much of what you say can still be applied though my own thoughts are along slightly different approaches. My feeling is that the article's table of contents looks better now with less splits for special topics. It seems that the article can be brought up for peer level review comments with about another dozen or two dozen edits. That to me would sound like moving the article forward and then getting the peer review comments which you would like to see. Regarding your comments on the History section chronology, it seems that you are thinking about the separate sections of this article as subsections of the new History section as opposed to their being separate topics for presentation in the article. The Beatles FA for "Something" which you cited above in your comments, for example, did not have a separate Performances section for the group performances. The current History section seems to give a comprehensive overview of the history of the song from its start to contemporary times. Then the other sections go ahead to present discussions of separate aspects of the song's production, composition, etc. My own thoughts are that the article might look better with more details added in the Composition section, and the article as a whole might also look better with a new Lyrics section added which is currently not in the article. If you would like the move the article forward towards a peer review evaluation then that sounds like it would be a good idea. What do you think? ErnestKrause (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause: Why didn't you requested directly a peer review of my work? I expanded and improved the page several months ago, that's what I don't understand since my model was: Déjà Vu (Beyoncé song) which is a FA-Class song article, and you can find the #Music video section with the same subsections titled "Accolades", and "Synopsis". This is the standard, not a personal taste. If you want to add more details in the #Composition section that's because it's weak now since you have split the original section with #Production and release. You analyzed the text to be too long, but there is no maximum length for a text. I hadn't done it for this reason. You add a Lyrics section if you want, I don't mind, but it's not encyclopedic. I am worried that you would delete the quotations in the Quote box, they are relevant. Don't merge the cover with the Cranberries' content, please, covers are always at the bottom. If you want a peer review evaluation there's no problem, but I don't see anything to merge because each song article has its #Music video, #Reception, #Charts, and #Covers sections, that's why I can't see what you're trying to merge with the Composition section. Oroborvs (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some of the preliminary material to the composition section so that you can see what I meant. Regarding my own assessment of what you have done for this article, I think you have done a really good job with the collection and formatting of the references which are in very good shape. The FA articles which you are quoting look to me like over-reach at this time, whether its the Beyonce article you like, or the Beatles song you previous mentioned. With about one dozen or two dozen more edits, I think the article can have a stronger table of contents and some stronger expanded sections which would help to promote the article from C-class where it is now. The Beyonce article which you like so much does have a Music and Lyrics section and I think this article would benefit from something like a Lyrics section. Would you be ready to try to do such a section for this article to help expand it and enhance it further? ErnestKrause (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause:The initial version could have been brought to GA, with grammatical, punctuation, and redundancy correction, nothing more. The article was ok, other experienced users have checked the article. Now there's an overuse of quotations WP:QUOTEFARM. "I think you have done a really good job with the collection and formatting of the references which are in very good shape": you forget that the whole text of Cranberries and Bad Wolves was written by me, and the time spent doing research. What is your legitimacy to say that "The FA articles which you are quoting look to me like over-reach at this time"? Also, the first section finishes with "O'Riordan's death", and the second starts with "O'Riordan had a feeling"; what do you think of that? If you merge the covers with the Cranberries' contents, it will be reverted. Oroborvs (talk) 23:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

PASSED
Good article nomination passed, after comments in review were sufficiently addressed. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Zombie (The Cranberries song)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Igordebraga (talk · contribs)

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

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)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Background[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • "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[edit]

  • "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[edit]

  • 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[edit]
  • 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[edit]

Praise[edit]
  • 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=[edit]
  • 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[edit]
  • 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[edit]
  • Spotcheck: [75] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [76] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [68][77] Verified.
  • Spotcheck: [76] Verified.

Chart performance[edit]

  • 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[edit]

Background and production[edit]
  • 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[edit]
  • 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[edit]
  • 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[edit]
  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • No notes.

Charts[edit]

  • No notes.

Certifications and sales[edit]

  • No notes.

Bad Wolves cover[edit]

  • 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[edit]
  • 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[edit]
  • No notes.
Certificates and sales[edit]
  • No notes.

Miley Cyrus cover[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zombie_(The_Cranberries_song)&oldid=1216855556"