Revisa la etiqueta de cuidado, no sea que la ropa encoja.

Revisa is the tú imperative of revisar: revisa = check.

So the sentence is giving an instruction directly to one person in an informal way, like:

• Revisa la etiqueta = Check the label

In Spain, this is the normal informal singular command. If you were speaking more formally, you would say:

• Revise la etiqueta... = Check the label... (formal usted)

La etiqueta de cuidado means the care label or care tag on clothing: the label that gives washing, drying, ironing, and fabric-care instructions.

Word by word:

• etiqueta = label, tag
• de cuidado = about care / for care

In natural English, we would usually say care label rather than translate it literally as label of care.

In Spanish, la ropa is a very common singular collective noun meaning clothes or clothing.

So although it refers to multiple items in English, in Spanish it is grammatically singular:

• La ropa es cara = Clothes are expensive
• La ropa encoja = the clothing shrinks

This is completely normal Spanish.

No sea que is an expression used to introduce something undesirable that might happen, often after advice, a warning, or a precaution.

Here it means something like:

• in case
• so that ... doesn’t happen
• for fear that
• lest (more formal/literary in English)

So:

• Revisa la etiqueta de cuidado, no sea que la ropa encoja. = Check the care label, in case the clothing shrinks.

It is not usually translated word for word. You should learn no sea que as a fixed expression.

Yes. Sea is the present subjunctive form of ser.

However, in no sea que, it is best understood as part of the fixed expression no sea que, rather than as a literal use of ser that you analyze word by word.

Historically/literally, it is something like lest it be that..., but learners usually do better if they simply treat no sea que as one chunk meaning in case / lest / for fear that.

Because no sea que triggers the subjunctive.

After no sea que, Spanish uses the subjunctive to talk about a possible, feared, or unwanted result:

• No sea que llegue tarde = In case he arrives late / lest he arrive late
• No sea que se rompa = In case it breaks
• No sea que la ropa encoja = In case the clothing shrinks

So encoja is the present subjunctive form.

Encoja comes from encoger.

• encoger = to shrink, to make smaller
• encogerse = to shrink, to draw up, to become smaller

In clothing contexts, Spanish often uses encoger to mean shrink:

• La ropa encoge = Clothes shrink
• La ropa encoja = the clothing shrinks / should shrink

The spelling change g → j happens because of the subjunctive form:

• encoger → encoja

This is the same kind of spelling change you see in:

• escoger → escoja
• proteger → proteja

Both can be found, but encoger without se is perfectly normal when talking about clothes shrinking.

So these are both possible in many contexts:

• La ropa encoge
• La ropa se encoge

In this sentence, encoja is fine and natural. The version with se encoja would also be understandable, but the original sentence does not need se.

Yes, but it sounds a bit more careful or slightly more formal than some other everyday alternatives. It is perfectly good Spanish, and native speakers do use it.

Depending on the situation, people might also say:

• ...para que la ropa no encoja = ...so that the clothing doesn’t shrink
• ...no vaya a encoger la ropa = ...so the clothing doesn’t end up shrinking
• ...por si la ropa encoje/encoge — though this changes the nuance and is not exactly the same structure

So no sea que is natural, especially in warnings and advice.

The comma separates the main instruction from the warning/caution that follows.

• Revisa la etiqueta de cuidado = main command
• no sea que la ropa encoja = reason for caution / undesirable possibility

So the comma helps show the structure clearly: Do this — otherwise this bad thing might happen.

Yes, grammatically and in meaning, lest is very close:

• Check the care label, lest the clothes shrink.

However, lest sounds quite formal or old-fashioned in modern English. In most everyday English, you would more naturally say:

• Check the care label in case the clothes shrink.
• Check the care label so the clothes don’t shrink.
• Check the care label so you don’t end up shrinking the clothes.

So lest is a good way to understand the grammar, but not always the best everyday translation.

Because ropa is normally used as an uncountable/singular noun in Spanish when talking about clothing in general.

So Spanish usually says:

• la ropa = clothes / clothing

not:

• las ropas

Las ropas can exist in certain special contexts, but it is not the normal everyday way to say clothes.

Yes, but the nuance changes a little.

• mira = look at
• revisa = check, inspect, look over carefully

In this sentence, revisa is a better choice because the idea is not just to glance at the label, but to check the care instructions carefully.

So:

• Mira la etiqueta = Look at the label
• Revisa la etiqueta = Check the label

It works in Spain and is perfectly natural there. The most clearly Spain-compatible feature is the tú command revisa, which is also used in many other Spanish-speaking places.

Nothing in the sentence is strongly limited to Spain, but a learner of Spanish from Spain should definitely be comfortable with this kind of structure:

• informal command: revisa
• warning expression: no sea que
• clothing vocabulary: la ropa, encoger

So yes, it fits Spain Spanish very well, even if it is not exclusive to Spain.