# Talk:Grupo Frontera political controversy

Why is this page split from Grupo Frontera? The band's page is not that large to perform a split, the content that existed there before is concise enough and there are no real consequences yet to the controversy (i.e. how their sales were affected). (CC) Tbhotch™ 04:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

The Aguilar stepbrothers little conflict can be count as consequence of the controversy. In addition, if you can see the revision you used, there was a undue weight template. There are a lot of pages that are so similar to this one, such as I don't know her and Taylor Swift deepfake pornography controversy. One more example, but more distant, would be Elon Musk salute controversy. Although there are not "explicit evidences" of a sales impact, it is enough to check their TikTok page, where the controversy had its main place, to see the rejectment to the band. In fact, their recent single, "Ya No", has been affected by the controversy. Although it received 500k views in one day, the like count decreased at a 72% approximately based in the average count they used to receive for that views, and the next days the song did not have a stable performance on YouTube. However, putting this will be a WP:OR violation. Santi (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Grupo Frontera political controversy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Pollosito (talk · contribs) 16:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: JustARandomSquid (talk · contribs) 20:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Going to pick this up for review. Don't have all that much free time at the moment, so it might do this review in pieces, but I'm fairly confident I'll get it done in 7 days. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

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, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section):  b (inline 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Checking off the media criteria. Only one piece of media, fair use rationale provided, suitably captioned, appropriately used, also ticking off references section. Earwig is clean, so I'm going to check off copyvio too. No edits for 6 months, so stable can be ticked off too. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and fix some minor issues myself:

"from public" ---> "from the public"
"Y.M.C.A" ---> "Y.M.C.A."
"...related it directly as political support" ---> "... interpreted it as direct political support" (the word related usually needs to be in the form 'related to')
I don't approve of the word "viralization". It's barely even a real word, and it wasn't entirely clear what was going viral anyway.
"and calling the alleged endorsement a "betrayal of Mexicans"" doesn't fit into the sentence so I've rephrased it.
The word wherein is used slightly too often, so I've cut some of it out.
Added a missing 'and'.
"..."Espíritu" dismissed it as an explicit endorsement..." sounds like he confirmed it was an explicit endorsement but thought it didn't matter. I've changed that now.
There are a few issues with the quotes, but I'll wait until the spot-check to address those. JustARandomSquid (talk) 06:39, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
That means I can tick off well-written etc. I also forgot to mention, but the nominator is an extremely significant contributor to the article. I'm now going to read through the article, paying attention to the MOS, broadness and NPOV criteria.

Looking at the lead here, what does "discovered a deleted video on TikTok of them dancing to the same song and interviews with some members" mean? Specifically the discovered interviews part.
I've added a WP:WEASELWORDS tag to a statement in the Reactions, analysis, and aftermath section. Fixed.
No issues beyond that. JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I still have a bit of time left, so I'm going to start the spot-check. 


#### Background and backlash
Ref 2 only needs to be cited at the end of the paragraph. Fixed.
I've made some changes to Cantu's quote to have to change it less.
None of the sources cited describe her dance as a "Trump dance", so I've fixed that.
"After considering it an endorsement of Trump, Mexican users interpreted it as direct political support from the group.". Sounds like WP:SYNTH to me, as the source cited doesn't say exactly that. I have replaced it with a fact that is supported by the source, as the nominator seems to be fairly inactive, so I am exercising my right to be bold from WP:GAN/I#R3 in the interest of getting this a green badge as soon as possibble.
"During the period in which the video was going viral, a user on the same platform affirmed that the group deleted videos in which they had explicitly endorsed the politician and sympathized with his politics." affirmed is a word to watch, so I've replaced that, and as this is a somewhat contentious claim, I've added the users name.
"and the alleged endorsement was called a "betrayal of Mexicans"" is just not in any of the sources cited? Or at least I can't find it. I've replaced it with the closest claim possible that is supported by the references.
"Therefore, fans called for the group to be canceled..." potential breach of MOS:OP-ED? Removed the 'therefore'.
"...for others to refrain from consuming any content related to them, including songs, videos and live performances.[6][8][9]" Ref 8 has nothing to do with the facts stated, so I've removed it.
"A video of booing at one of their recent concerts..." the article later states this could've been fabricated, so best not present it like we're sure it happened. Never mind, it sounds ok. I did change "went viral" as that is not supported by the sources.
"Furthermore, some users noticed that they deleted a TikTok video dancing the same song as Solís' grandmother, as well as videos of interviews with some of the members, where they encouraged others to vote for the politician, considering them explicit evidence of an endorsement." The sources don't mention any interviews? I'm going to have to let the nominator do this one, as I'm not hunting around for sources to support this.
Because I'm seeing sourcing issues here, I'm going to randomly spot-check the rest of the article to see if this issue is systemic.

"condemning the information spread on social media as "erroneous"." Unlike what the article implies, that statement has nothing to do with Grupo Frontera? The author is just saying in general what happens to celebrities.
"some online newspapers labeled the concert booing as fake with altered audio." the second source cited just doesn't mention the concert booing at all? I was looking at the wrong source, however I'm not really amazed with this source either, as it only implies it believes the video weas fake, and relies on the judgement of social media users.
"According to TVNotas' Jessica Luna, Emiliano may have deleted the stories after a possible scolding from his father due to the overwhelming attacks." I mean, he may? Jessica says "it's unclear", so this is just passing speculation onwards in wikivoice.
"Peña's response to it, "We dedicate ourselves to music. We love everyone and want peace and love. Take care of yourselves", was called "poor" and linked to the rumors by fans." This is a very confusing sentence to verify, but if the fans called it poor, no they didn't, Rolling Stone did, and the whole linked to rumors by fans thing is pretty vague, the closest the cited source comes to confirming this is "...viewing the response as confirmation of the group’s support for Trump" which isn't really the same thing (are these the rumors? what does 'linked' even mean here?)
All in all, considering the issues, and that the nominators recent activity seems to consist of several hours a month in editing bursts, I don't think the issues will be fixed within a week, so I'll unfortunately be failing. I'm not sure what to do with this. For now I'll put it on hold for a few days, in case the nominator suddenly shows up and tells me I'm somehow all wrong or whatever. I'll think about this and decide whether these issues are fixable. Cheers! JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid: Hi, thanks for picking this one! I had been waiting a lot for a GAR for this one, so I thought this will never be reviewed.
In regards of the comments, they are a bit complicated for me to understand, so I want to ask for patience to comprehend. Give me a term of seven days to fix the article according to what you said above (in fact, some of your comments are because of my English level by then hihi).
I repeat, thank u so much for this. Sincerely,  Santi (talk) 04:48, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@JustARandomSquid, I finished addressing all your comments. Here my opinions on three of them I didn't carry out:
Julián Peña's response: yes, Trump's endorsement is "the rumors" here because it has never been confirmed. With "viewing the response as confirmation of the group’s support for Trump", the article is giving us to understand that the band's fans put his statement into the same box of the "endorsement". That's what I consider as the meaning of the expression "link [something] to". Furthermore, with the "poor" tag, I don't see it necessary to specify who said that, because it is a potencial (or if not, obvious) shared opinion among that fans with the magazine, even if not explicitly mentioned in the source. It's a kind of trick.
Periódico ABC's writer article: When he talks about celebrities in general, he says they are usually victims of erroneous information. Why does he mention that while addressing the Frontera's controversy? Because he wants to state in a very subtle way that the endorsement rumors are false. It's my personal opinion.
Jessica Luna's comments: I put the speculation because I had seen so in other articles that, in spite of being reliable, I preferred not to pick them because I saw the TV Notas source as "more reliable" than them. Additionally, I don't see bad that this is a speculation considering that it is mentioned in enough amount of sources (as I said before).
I notice that you may be busy, so you can answer me whenever you are available. Santi (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
@Pollosito Oh great, I didn't think you would respond. You seemed fairly competent to me, which is why I didn't fail it, hoping you'd fix it. Unfortunately I am slightly too busy to do anything more than type short messages on my phone, but as soon as I find some time I'll sit down, look over what you've done, check the rest of the sources, and hopefully be able to pass. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Going through the article again:

"Furthermore, some users noticed that they deleted a TikTok video dancing the same song as Solís' grandmother, considering them explicit evidence of an endorsement." Are we sure the source you cited (11) isn't just referring to the original video with the grandmother?
The lead now says "Despite answers in an interview with El País, fans tagged it as an endorsement of Trump from the group, and later discovered videos containing explicit support". I don't see that the explicit support is mentioned anywhere in the body? Or did you mean the Instagram screencasts?
As for the three things you objected to:

I've tweaked the sentence here a little bit to explain what the rumours are, I hope you don't mind.
Would you be ok with the version I just changed it to?
Could you provide at least one more source that says this may have happened, even if it's not the most reliable?
JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid: I've already fixed the article. In regards of the alleged scolding, I replaced the info with a more useful one, as the sources I'd checked by then are currently disappeared. Santi (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
@Pollosito I've made a few minor tweaks, i put back the "as Solís' grandmother", I think it was ok to include, I also added an 'allegedly' and 'tagged' sounds a bit strange. Everything else is ok. Passing! JustARandomSquid (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)