Talk:Dru Hill

Druid Hill Park

I'm new to Wikipedia, but how come this article mentions that Dru Hill named themselves after Druid Hill Park but Druid Hill Park is not written as a blue-colored link to this site's seperate entry on Druid Hill Park?

Also, there is a street in Baltimore named Druid Hill, that runs north-south from MLK BLVD all the way to Druid Hill Park. The neighborhood around part of this street at its North end (but still a little south of druid hill park) is also called Druid Hill. I'm just not sure this group is named after the park and not the neighborhood.

The other neighborhoods around the park are Reservoir Hill to its South, a predominatly Af-Am neighborhood filled with Victorian brownstones that many people compare to parts of New York and Achetrolly Terrace (my spelling is incorrect but you get the idea) to the West of the Park. Both of these neighborhoods broder the Druid Hill neighborhood.

There is also a seperate entry in Wikipedia for Bolton Hill, which is a neighborhood in Baltimore just to the South of Reservoir Hill. It has similar housing stock but is lilly white, so many people call it the white Reservoir Hill. This could be linked to the Reservoir Hill article. Just a thought...

Because I didn't know WIkipedia had a seperate article on Druid Hill Park. I'm not even sure it's neccessary. --FuriousFreddy 01:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The group did actually name themselves after Druid Hill Park. They had a job at the park making fudge and used to sing as they worked. That is where the four original members met, and that is why they named themselves Dru Hill. Greene turtle (talk) 15:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Not true at all. Two of them met in middle school and others in high school. The Fudgery is at the Harbor not Druid Hill Park...I think it's established already in the article and since your comment is so old, I guess you didn't know.

Featured Music Project evaluation

Dru Hill has been evaluated according to the Featured Music Project criteria, most recently affirmed as of this revision. The article's most important issues are listed below. Since this evaluation, the article may have been improved.

The following areas need work to meet the criteria: Lead - Comprehensiveness - Pictures - Audio - References - Format/Style

The space below is for limited discussion on this article's prospects as a featured article candidate. Please take conversations to the article talk page.

• Lead: 2-4 paragraphs
• Comprehensiveness: Musical style, legacy and influences
• Pictures: Need fair use rationales
• Audio: Needs sound samples
• References: Inline citations, more refs, especially print
• Format/Style: Maybe combine some small sections, need summary under "History"

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 02:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what happened to the above re-review a year ago, but coming across this article again, it seems as if a GA re-review is indeed in order. I don't know what has changed with the article or the criteria since then, after looking at the article, I've noticed a few things that might qualify the article to be delisted from GA status. But, instead of automatically putting the article up for review, I thought I'd bring up the issues here first:

• The main image should not be an album cover. Ideally it should be a free image of somesort. The other fair-use images in the article do not have a fair-use rationale, source, etc. I would recommend adding template:Non-free media rationale and template:information to clear this up. This in and of itself would normally qualify the article for quick-fail of GA status.
• The article is not referenced very well at all. Ideally every new thought should have an inline citaiton. The format of the references that are there are also inconsistent with each other and wikistyle. I'd recommend using citation templates, though to be fair, use of those templates are required for GA status, but consistency is.
• The article as a whole is very limited in its scope. The article doesn't discuss the band's sound, criticisms/controversies (if any existed), etc. It's just a historical account, which is fine, but there should be much more.
• The lead paragraph seems somewhat small (especially if you expanded the article like I suggested above)
• The article's external links are fan sites! Surely there's an official homepage or MySpace of something to provide more information.

Hopefully these issues can be addressed soon. Feel free to discuss the matter here or on my talk page. I'll nominate the article for GA review in a few days otherwise, at which point your welcome to comment and contribute there as well. Drewcifer3000 03:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The result of the review was to delist. Discussion archived here. Drewcifer 05:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

B-class will work fine then. Incidentally, the article has a whole section on controversy, and a paragraph on the group's sound (which is really as long as it's going to get; Dru Hill wasn't exactly a groundbreaking group). Since the group isn't technically active right now, you're not going to get a free image. As far as I know, there are no official sites, only fan sites. As for referencing...it's whatever. --FuriousFreddy 05:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dru hill hits.jpg

Image:Dru hill hits.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

• As much as I like this group, there seems to be a lot of unsourced "hype" about them in this article, especially when it comes to Sisqo. Anthony Rupert (talk) 04:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Christmas in Baltimore

I have started the article for the Christmas in Baltimore EP, feel free to add or correct anything. Shahriar Mesdaghi (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dru Hill. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150106085111/http://www.fudgeryfudge.com:80/about.html to http://fudgeryfudge.com/about.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070228071417/http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp to http://www.riaa.com/gp/database/default.asp
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://ammonra.net/2010/06/25/dru-hill-reunited-on-new-reality-show/,
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050316064515/http://static.highbeam.com:80/e/entertainmentweekly/january262001/hereandnowthisweekonthemusicbeatbriefarticle/ to http://static.highbeam.com/e/entertainmentweekly/january262001/hereandnowthisweekonthemusicbeatbriefarticle/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213022334/http://www.luvgrooves.com:80/scolamusic/ to http://www.luvgrooves.com/scolamusic

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) 03:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)