Talk:A New Day Has Come

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleA New Day Has Come 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
January 23, 2013Good article nomineeListed

Copy protection problem[edit]

Mention should be made of the copy protection problems of the CD, which caused major problems when played in an iMac.[1] --Auric 03:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:A New Day Has Come/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 04:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe this has been on GAN for so long! Here's my review.

  • "It's her first new studio album" - I think "it's" should be "It was". It's a personal editing choice, but I think given ambiguity between "it is" and "it was", I'd rather see it written out in the past tense.
  • "Dion returned after a two-year hiatus where she gave birth to her first child." - where -> when
    • What about this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Dion returned to the music scene after a two-year hiatus". When? On March 22, 2002 - the date is in the previous sentence. Max24 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the new Swedish team" - was that their nickname? I think that sounds unencyclopediac, since there's nowhere else in the article where that term is mentioned.
    • Were those Swedish musicians new to music scene, or just new to Dion's crew? If the latter, I'd say "including [X and Y] for the first time." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reaching top forty" - for here and other instances, shouldn't it be "reaching the top forty?"
  • "Since then, she has performed publicly only a handful of times, including September 21, 2001" - shouldn't this be "she had performed"?
  • "According to Dion, the album's title, A New Day Has Come, acknowledged a chapter in her life and career" - I hate to ask, given the title, but would it be "acknowledged a new chapter?" Is this a quote?
  • "However, she was also deeply affected by the events of September 11 and wanted the words to serve as a reminder of the tragedy as well." - "as well" isn't needed
  • "Angélil, Dion, and the Sony family began fielding songs at the beginning of 2001" - The previous mention of "Angélil" was Dion's newborn, so I don't think that's what's meant here. Also, "fielding"? Maybe "selecting prospective" would work better and more natural?
  • "seven-months old baby" - IMO that should be "month"
  • I've never felt more powerful." I want this album to be soothing," - parenthesis problem?
    • There's still something wrong here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have removed part of the citation. Max24 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""If people need a partner, a helping hand, to cry, to dance, whatever it is, I want it to be like a little shoulder to lean on. As we all know, the world is going through a lot."" - this seems a bit extraneous, IMO. Your call though.
  • "which Dion first heard three years ago" - ago -> prior
  • "1947's song" - 's isn't needed
  • Ref 11 seems unreliable, given it's from Amazon. Can you get a better source for that info?
    • Could you add a source when you compare the two lengths of "The Greatest Reward"? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - I have added two sources, one for the album with short version and one for the album with extended version. Max24 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Destiny's Child" - remove "The"
  • "For the finale, the divas performed a special Elvis Presley medley which included Dion's "Can't Help Falling in Love." - so was that song off a Dion album? Or was that Dion's solo in the medley? If that's the case, it should be rewritten.
  • "at number twenty-two" - any reason you didn't do "22"? Ditto elsewhere in the article for numbers above 10.
    • Per WP:MOSNUM, this still needs to be done. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • At first I have changed the numbers from words to figures but I have read the WP:MOSNUM and it says: "As a general rule, in the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words; numbers greater than nine, if they are expressed in one or two words, may be rendered in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred). So I have restored the words. Max24 (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critical reception" is good, largely because it uses so many quotes.
  • "and as of December 5, 2010, it has sold 3,307,000 copies in the United States" - any more recent?

All in all, pretty good. Lemme know when you deal with these. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) The source form December 5, 2010 is the most recent. Thank you for the review! The article has been on GAN for so long... Max24 (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, it was on GAN way too long. I reposted a few things that weren't quite done. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on A New Day Has Come. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:A New Day Has Come/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Article requirements:

Green tickY A relatively complete infobox
Green tickY Cover art in the infobox
Green tickY A lead section giving an overview of the album
Green tickY At least one section of informative prose other than lead
Green tickY A track listing (for "start" class), containing track lengths & composers (for "B" class)

  • A list of personnel (specific band members (for "start" class), guest musicians and technical (for "B" class)
Green tickY Categorisation at least by artist and year

Last edited at 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 06:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on A New Day Has Come. 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) 18:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on A New Day Has Come. 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: 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) 22:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on A New Day Has Come. 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: 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) 06:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on A New Day Has Come. 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: 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) 12:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on A New Day Has Come. 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: 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) 20:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sales[edit]

@Loibird90: to avoid any unnecesary edit war and answering your latest two edit summaries when you asked for a reference, please be aware when @88marcus: changed those inflated claimed sales, he provided a reference (Billboard). And his changes are legitime: 12M for a 2002 album with 6,6M available certified units and sales, are clearly inflated. It's a gap of 5,2 million. 8 million are fine, and if you are able to provide a reference for 9 or 10 million I don't see a problem, unless anyone desagree. Open discussion if someone have a different point of view or something else to add.

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can give a credible and reliable source for your claims, it will remain as it is. Loibird90 (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are saying you will engage in an edit war to keep your preferred number. That's not a good sign.
The number is unrealistic given the certified sales figures from various countries. The math doesn't add up. Your source is not a reliable one for certified sales. You complained that the 2003 reference was too old, but the album is not showing long legs with continued chart success. In general, the people who want the album already have it. It's not selling very much these days, so there's no pressing need for a more recent reference. Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Loibird90: What is really important, is not the reference's age, but the tenier of this album. That's the key point. Thats means, needs to match at certain number the claimed sales vs available figures/certified units. 10 million and beyond its an important figure for 2000s releases, that aren't more than 100 titles yet ("legitime sellers") or aren't even close to it. You may think a 2003 report its old, and thats one year after the release of this album. But be advised this era ended before, on December 2002 with the single "At least" and the release overall for this title occured in the very earlier of the 2002 year.
8 million may look a notorious downgrade, but the gap of 5,3 million is the really most important/worried part for an album released during 2000s. At least, we can say we're very close to the claimed sales of 8 million (which is good) instead show the biased point of "put the next available highest sales report" (12 million), that are clearly unrealist and inflated numbers. If you find a source with a 9 million claim, I definitely don't have problem with the inclusion. A source with 10 million, its debatile but maybe (the good faith for releases from 2000-2005 a gap as high as 2.5/3 million are "realistic" but if they actually meet others "key factors") --Apoxyomenus (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The numbers in ANDHC table are 3 million in Europe and 4.4 million in other territories, which gives us 7.4 million. Yet, you decided to change the total sales to just 8 million with source from early 2003. So now the gap is only 0.4 million. The table includes just known numbers from selected countries, most of them from 2002. It's obvious that the sales is much higher than 8 million. I see that you Apoxyomenus edit many of Madonna articles. I looked into few of them in similar timing and there's a way bigger gap between sales from the table and a total, than 0.4 million like in case of ANDHC now. Ray of Light and Greatest Hits V2 - gap almost 3 million, Confessions on a Dancefloor and Amercian Life - gap 2.5 million. Double standard? So, according to you 3 million gap is ok? In that case, total of 10.4 should be in the table of ANDHC. The source of 12 million is taken from Billboard, not MTV South Africa like Madonna's for example. Billboards source is from 2008. 12 million is also in the 2008 Legacy album re-edition's liner notes. And there's a source from Radio France Internationale. The number 12 million was also in this article in January 2013, when it was verified and became a good article. You think 12 million is inflated number? 8 million definitely is lowered. So why is this change good? And why Billboards article which is 5 years older is better than Billboard's article from 2008? Where's the logic? I could agree Apoxyomenus, if we'll go through all of Madonna's articles and lower all her totals by adding just 0.4 million. Till this happens, I'm restoring the previous number of 12 million with reliable sources, which were there for many years. So now 4.6 million is "missing". I'm sure it's not the biggest gap in Wikipedia's history. Dion's certifications are not updated, aside from few countries, we know nothing about her sales in Asia and South America. I will also look for other sources. --Max24 (talk) 18:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Max24:

First. As I said, personally I don't have problem if there is a reference citing 9 or even 10 million (and nobody haven't provided it yet an available source), because obviosly this album sold more than 8 million based on chart/sales performance. At the same time is not an inmediatily justification of the 12 million number. Current gap its 5.1 million based on known sales. The European certification of 3x Platinum give us a general print of missing sales in that continent alone, which is good to justify the "missing data" instead enlarging the gap. Revert edits were fine and I wasn't the only one who noted an "inflated" number for an album released in the 2000s. I also pointed out it was a notorious downgrade, but the actual worried thing is that gap that is bigger than the majority of releases of that era (with the exceptions of some with sales of 20M+) and it's very notorious. You justified the Billboard reference, but they actually give the attribution to Sony. Context matters but here, the justification of using that number citing that "Billboard" said it's disputable.
Second: Regarding your "concern" because I edit on Madonna's articles and the rhetorical question of "double standard" you said I have: Assume a bit of good faith. When I noticed inflated sales or other errors, of course I revert/changed them: 1 or 2. Curiously she has bigger claimed numbers from almost all her albums, but obviosly at least for me, I don't will run to put them. Take the first of your examples, Ray of Light an album with "reliable sources" citing 18 million or even 20 million with 3 million gap. That's pretty good gap for an album of the 1990s and ofc, evidence that she sold more in other countries non-listed is present. Similarly, and despite the following albums GHV2 and Confessions on a Dance Floor were released in the mid-2000s both have a gap of 2.6M (not "almost" 3 million as you said) and 2.2M (not 2.5 as you said) respectively: all of them have the background of "missing" data, chart performances beyond the list of countries with sales etc. That gap is in line with the average for that period (mid 2000s). Less than 3 million gap or in other way, certified units/sales coverage exceed the 60% from its certified/available sales from its claimed sales.
Despite your long answer and that I understood your point, at least for me, I still supporting the inclusion of 8 million because the gap of 5M still notorious. However and while I would tried to talk first instead revert three editors, I don't will revert your edition, despite your assumption of bad faith, because that's not our goal in Wikipedia to created unnecesary and long edit wars. Maybe other editors could participate or create a consensus. Idk. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick with the lower numbers. The higher claim is poorly supported, and the math doesn't work. Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the 8 million claim but if we don't reach consensus we can include "it sold between 8 and 12 million copies worldwide" or even "as of (date) it sold over 8 million copies worldwide". Unfortunally I couldn't find nothing different than 7kk, 8kk or 12kk for this album.--88marcus (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've noted Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Radio-Canada) says that album sold 9,2 million (2019). Maybe it can help. If I have time, I'll do an additional research (mainly French, a language that I don't have problem with to do researches). And as I said before, I don't have problem with that figures in the range of 9-10M. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC) PS: To give more perspective a 2006 article from ABC News give sales of 7 million[reply]
Great! 9,2 is perfect!--88marcus (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says the album sold 9.2 million in the year of 2002. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily943 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You compare certifications/sales tables of Madonna and Celine Dion, so do I, but with different conclusions. First of all, Madonna has far more countries listed in the tables, that's why her gap might be smaller. She has basically certifications and sales from Italy for all of her albums. Dion has zero. Does this mean that Dion has sold zero albums in Italy? Or just that we have no sources? Same for other countries like Russia, Chile, Mexico, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, South Africa, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Turkey, Costa Rica or Middle East. Someone did a good job finding sources for all these countries certs or sales for Madonna. We don't have them for Dion, but does this mean that ANDHC has sold zero there? And what about other countries? And yes, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation article with 9.2 million clearly says, she has sold it in 2002. Taking number from this article, what about after 2002? The album was still charting in 2003. And what about later years as a catalog seller? I have found more sources for 12 million, for example: this from CNews or this from a book Un autre monde. Les amours de la chanson française et du rock, and will add them to the article. --Max24 (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your objectivity. I'm off of this conversation since you still making assumptions because I edit on Madonna's articles. My last reply to your concern/message: Yes, she has now cleaner gap in almost all her releases and I contributed to find sales in a varied countries. That doesn't means I "compared" her certifications/sales tables using Madonna's example with Dion (or any other artist). If you are making "comparisons" just take a look of contemporary releases such as Justified or The Emancipation of Mimi (an artist you usually work in). Are only two examples as releases with massive sales in many countries and their gap not exceed 4/5 million.
Gap exists and are fine, because there are missing data, numbers that we can't always see etc. Cion is an example of this with releases like this as one of the top artist in the "album era". That doesn't mean every gap is acceptable or "because is Dion". Nothing is official, but as I understand we apply de facto here in Wikipedia the claimed sales vs certified units (+ available sales) and a percentage required by the album tenier (70s, 80s, 90's... etc). [...] Using your examples of my edit's on Madonna-articles: I guess might be correct using your same analogy for upgrade her sales, because "she's Madonna" (her sales come from everywhere) and we have "reliable sources" (mid-2000s, only a gap of 4/5 million) : Music (13-14 million), GHV2 (8 million), Confessions on a Dance Floor (12 million)... or let me put the claim of 8M for "Vogue" since is older that "My Heart Will Go On" plus that have 18 million claim against 8.5 of available sales (doubled its sales). Of course that's not gonna happen.
I did an additional research (French sources), and technically the 12 million claim is omnipresent since 2002-2003 with source like you cited: Radio France Internationale. The reference from Radio-Canada may claim that album sold 9,2 in 2002 but honestly, we can use perfectly that reference for these purposes IMHO. None reference is perfect, even certifications databases have their errors (serious or minors). And please also look the context: Billboard's example here tecnically is contradicting the other references when they cited 8 million (2003; 1 year after its release). We can also assume, the 12 million came originally from Sony when Billboard cited them back in 2008. While context really matters, and it might not be problem when a third-party source cited a record company for sales when number mathcs, in this case is quite disputable due the fact of that gap. Honestly, I don't will spend more time on this and because all comments or the other users' point of view doesn't count because the preferred number is 12 million. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_New_Day_Has_Come&oldid=1197182655"