Jump to content

Talk:Eazy-Duz-It

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleEazy-Duz-It has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
March 22, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Sampling

[edit]

Could someone please post a list of the various other songs that are sampled in Eazy-Duz-It. I'd post it myself, but I havn't got a clue what songs are sampled in Eazy-Duz-It! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandalorian NerfHerder Maceo (talkcontribs) 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Eazy-Duz-It/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    There are numerous prose issues that I am concered with. For example: "Three of the four singles released from the album in the United States (US)." – Grammar issues and no need to include the US parenthesis; "Eazy-Duz-It was recorded at Audio Achievements, in Torrance, California from 1987 to 1988." – No need to have a comma after Achievements; "...while the D.O.C.'s included "syllabically punchy boasts" and Ice Cube wrote "masterfully insightful first-person narratives."– Comma needed after "wrote"; "Jason Birchmeier from Allmusic gave a considerable amount of note to the album's production..." – "considerable amount of note" – very unusual phrasing for me, please rephrase the "note" part; "leftover electro sounds of mid-'80s Los Angeles" – All Wikipedia articles now need to address things like "80s" – was it the 1780s or 1980s? Even though it may be obvious, it needs to be written out in full. These are just some of the issues I have picked out. I suggest a thrid-party editor give this a pair of fresh eyes and provide a good copy edit of this article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Article is properly sourced and complies to WP:OR.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article complies to WP:NPOV.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is stable.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    There are a number of issues to do with the prose to bring it to GA standards. I suggest a good copy edit by a fresh pair of eyes to polish the prose and fix these prose problems. – SMasters (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed all the issues that you have listed. I'm right now gonna re-check the article, and probably get someone else to look it over. CrowzRSA 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed up some more things, and I think it should be okay now. CrowzRSA 14:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for making all the fixes, I'm happy that the article now meets all the requirements for a GA, and I'm happy to pass it. – SMasters (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eazy-Duz-It. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 11:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eazy-Duz-It. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 14:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]

Please do not change the release date without a source. Currently there is one. If it's being contended, you'll have to discuss it here and provide sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's been many sources that it was released on Sept 16. Even Discogs confirm the release date on September. But I guess there's no point debating here. Believe what you fucking what to believe.
Could you provide some? The source (which to be open, I've added) shows release information from a scanned copy of a press release specifying the date of release of the album. As for the discogs source, we do not use that site as a source on wikipedia as its a user-generated database that allows anyone to edit. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You got Google search? You look it up. The November date was probably scanned around the time the date was changed back and back again. History of this article shows it was edited by another anonymous user. The September 16 date has been shown many years before some bastard suddenly changed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.147.78.75 (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid per WP:ONUS, if you want content added and to an article or to be retained, it's up to you to find proper sources. I would suggest reading WP:RS beforehand as well.Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are using retrospective articles for this information as per the source (which is a contemporary one) clearly states the release date. I've even done some digging around newspapers.com and there is no promotion for this album in any paper until early December of that year. I would go by sources more strictly dedicated to the dates in question. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fuck you, then! Judging by your name, what the fuck you know about hip hop anyway! I actually did a lot of research, unlike you obviously. Stupid motherfucker!

As there has not really been any updates that have been made that are in any sense civil, I've removed them as vandalism. People who make edit summaries like that are not trying to improve an encyclopedia. If anyone is willing to talk about the release date seriously, i'll be happy to do it on the talk page here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

I've taken a photo of the book page in question that is an image of a document to source the release date of the book. This promo release of Eazy-Duz-It clearly states that the album Shipped on November 24". The image can be found here. I hope this clears up any other issues. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up, this section of the RIAA website backs up this date here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which are more likely re-releases. But no point in debating with such a fascist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.194.188.238 (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you can say that, but you'll need to back it up. Also, I'm not sure why you think i'm taking over the page, I've provided two high quality sources. You've said "several sites say otherwise" but haven't provided anything. You need reliable sources. People at WP:ALBUMS might be able to help you out here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 06:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To back it up a pinch, if you look at calandar dates and this issue of Cashbox from December here, you can see the album only entering the charts three weeks earlier, which would match with the late November date. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://hiphopgoldenage.com/just-one-eazy-e-or-ice-t/ This is proof in itself, but I know this wouldn't be good enough as it's too fan-based according to fascists.
I'm not sure if this person's source should be taken as i don't think it trumps the document with from the label itself. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's one of the earlier evidences from a fan. What difference does it make it the source is from a fan or your so-called reliable ones? GFYS.
We don't use fan published material on wikipedia. See WP:RS and WP:OR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:26, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writer of 'Eazy-er Said Than Dunn'

[edit]

This track is credited to Dr. Dre on the back cover and it used to be noted as such in older versions of this article. Why did it change to the D.O.C.? I know that Dre wasn't really ever a writer and a lot of his verses were ghostwritten (especially by DOC), but do we have any source that states this specific track was written by DOC and not Dre? EDIT: Something else I also just noticed. The last track was originally uncredited (as B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.). Again, do we have a source that Ice Cube was the true writer? PantMal (talk) 09:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think i noticed that earlier. I don't have a copy of the album, but unless something pops up as a source, we should re-label it back to how the album describes the tracks. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So, I decided to add back Dr. Dre as a writer to 'Eazy-er Said Than Dunn' and the original 'credit' of Eazy-Chapter 8 Verse 10. However, D.O.C has stated in an interview that he also wrote 'Eazy-er Said Than Dunn', despite not being mentioned in the credits. There seems to be a conflict here. I think it's fair to add them both for now. I should note however that DOC did a lot of ghostwriting for Dr. Dre so this might be the case here too. PantMal (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Release date, again

[edit]

For September 13, 1988

For November 26, 1988

Any more RS candidates? OhNoitsJamie Talk 02:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible source for Sep is from this old website. Not sure it could be reliable. But here is is.

http://www.eazy-e.com/eazy_e-timeline.php

My source that is from a book, actually uses a scan from a press release from the record label itself. I've added a screenshot of this here just for discussion purposes. Thoughts @Ohnoitsjamie:? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here some for September 13-16, but they mostly pertain to the cassette release.
I wouldn't use those sources as albumoftheyear and rateyourmusic are strictly user-generated content, which fails WP:RS. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]