# Talk:Sad Wings of Destiny

Image:Sad wings of destiny cover.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 this Wikipedia article 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 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
== citation neededs
in a poll on an internet message board Sad Wings tied for First Place as best JP album, there is your citation as for it being a fan favorite. 
70.20.11.161 12:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The article states "The album was the only one by Judas Priest not to feature a title track up until 1980's British Steel (counting "Sinner" as the title track of 1977's Sin After Sin)."
So, why not count "Steeler" as the title track of British Steel then?  That would make "Point of Entry" their first album without a title track.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjm905 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 

Agreed, and the line doesn't really add anything of worth to the article anyway. So I've taken it out. Prophaniti (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Sad wings of destiny cover.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article states that the original track listing on the LP is starting on side 1 with "Prelude" and so on.
Well I have the LP (copyright 1975) in my possession and can say that this is not the case.
The track order is the same as on the CDs starting with "Victim of changes" on side 1. Only on the sleeve it starts with "Prelude" but not on the disc.
I found also a side which supports my notice:
http://www.discogs.com/Judas-Priest-Sad-Wings-Of-Destiny/release/385227
Can anyone confirm this or are there different versions of the original LP out?
If not the article should be modified accordingly. 78.48.130.7 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the LP sleeve suggests that side one begins with Prelude, but the label itself gives Victim of Changes as the opening track: http://www.collectable-records.ru/groups/judas%20priest/sad.htm
It could be that the band intended the track sequence to match the sleeve and a mistake happened with the labelling, but as a librarian and a cataloguer I'd have to select the record's label as the "chief source of information".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.238.27 (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 
Looking around at images of different pressings on the web, the "Victim of Changes" side is sometimes labelled "Side 1" and sometimes "Side A"—this blows my mind.  The sequencing works so much better opening with "Prelude" and closing with "Deceiver".  It has to be a mistake that nobody's bothered to fix after all these years. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Gull Records reissued this album in 2012 with correct tracklist on CD (Gull 88697967872-JK2).

Unfortunately I can find almost no info online about this release. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4836371
Here. Fuck copyright extremists.)

Ummm  ... I meant I was hoping for information that could be used for the article. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Try looking for "The Complete Album Collection" where ALL (even Gull albums) are. "Sad Wings Wings Of Destiny" with correct tracklist among them.
Proof of this release
Scanned Booklet from The Complete Albums box

K. K. Downing considers "Island of Domination" the album closer. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
This is not reliable source. Turn the logic on and think why one track is called "Prelude"... 'Cause it would be the first one and this happened at last in the only Judas Priest-endorsed re-release of the album.

I know it's not a reliable source, but reliable sources don't state that "Prelude" was meant to start the album—and if a member of the band says "Island of Domination" is the album closer, then I'm not getting my hopes up that a reliable source will be found that says otherwise. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have a Reliable Source on what equipment was used on this album? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sad Wings of Destiny/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 07:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting article, I'll take this on. Seems you've been waiting a while - I'll post my comments here over the next couple of days. Thanks :) — sparklism  hey! 07:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


### Lead
Would readers find it useful to link riff in the second paragraph?
Done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You might want to explain who 'Halford' is, since this is the first time he's been mentioned.
Spelled it out and linked. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the word "powerful" is needed here: would simply '[Rob] Halford's vocals' suffice?
Dropped "powerful". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
How 'long' is "Victim of Changes"? Could you be more specific?
Reworded to "eight-minute". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Are those semicolons necessary either side of "extended leads"? Shouldn't these just be commas? And what is and extended lead anyway?
Dropped semicolons. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
You could wikilink Gull Records here
Done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the second half of the final paragraph could do with some work, as it seems to drift away from the subject and the timeframes seem a little confusing. I'll try to think about how this could be improved if you don't get to it first.
Looking again at this, I think it just needed some clarification - I've gone ahead and done it, hope that's OK. — sparklism  hey! 07:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


### Background
Co-founder Al Atkins named the band, wanting one similar to Black Sabbath's. This doesn't quite read correctly to me. How about something along the lines of "Co-founder Al Atkins chose the band's name, wanting a similar sounding name to Black Sabbath...."?
I see the problem.  Reworded. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
The whole issue of naming is misleading. See the Judas Priest Wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Priest under History>Origins. The way that THIS page is written it makes in sound like Bruno was a cofounder and bassist of the band that we now know as Judas Priest, when in actuality it is Ian Hill.
See below. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
You might want to link 'riffing' again (if you chose to do it earlier)
Done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"complexity of the arrangements" - which arrangements are these?
These ones. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Are "Dreamer Deceiver" & "Deceiver" actually a 'pair'? I'm not quite sure what that term means in this context - a pair of songs?
Well, "Dreamer Deceiver" segues into "Deceiver"—not just on the album, but live, too. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
on The Old Grey Whistle Test on BBC Two the year before the songs appeared on Sad Wings of Destiny → "on BBC Two's The Old Grey Whistle Test in 1975"?
I think I'd rather keep the wording—the point is they played the songs on TV long before they appeared on an album. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I still think there are too many uses of 'on' - how about a slight tweak to prevent this: "on BBC Two's The Old Grey Whistle Test"? — sparklism  hey! 07:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"joked that fans should burn their copies of the album" - of this album, or their debut? Any idea why he said that?
Clarified. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


### Production
Does the source (Popoff) actually describe the cover piece as "dark"? Does it mean this dark or this dark?
Hmm ... Popoff describes it as "glorious" and "ebulliant".  I've dropped "dark". Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"depicting a struggling, grounded angel and surrounded by flames and wearing a devil's three-pronged cross" - I think there's one too many 'and's in there
Fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Recording was done → "Recording took place"? — sparklism  hey! 07:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This one is still outstanding — sparklism  hey! 07:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Now done. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Isn't the Typically Tropical song simply called "Barbados"? You might want to link that, too. — sparklism  hey! 07:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
You're right.  Fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this has been fixed yet. — sparklism  hey! 07:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I must have forgotten to click save or something.  Now fixed. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


### Songs
I see there was some debate on the talk page about running order. It seems that in this section you've got Side B before Side A - I'm not sure if this is important or not, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
I'd like to see this solved, but I know of no RS that clears it up.  You'll see both running orders on CDs, and the original LP had both (the sleeve gave one running order, the disc another). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
For "Epitaph", are we talking about this Queen, or this one? — sparklism  hey! 07:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see that Queen is linked later on (for "The Ripper"). I think it should just be linked in the first instance. — sparklism
 hey! 07:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and fixed this. — sparklism  hey! 06:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!  Somehow I missed this comment. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
For "Victim of Changes", we've got Black Sabbath-heavy riffing, melodic ballad, and extended leads. The 'Sabbath-heavy' bit doesn't quite scan right, and we're back to 'extended leads' again. Are these extended lead guitar solos? — sparklism  hey! 07:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Some solos, but also twin-lead arrangements, particularly in the intro.  "Extended lead" is a fairly common way of phrasing particularly long, prominent guitar-work.  What do you suggest for "Sabbath-heavy"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd think of this an an 'extended lead' (maybe it's a UK thing). Maybe "Black Sabbath-style heavy riffing"? And "melodic ballad" doesn't quite work here properly either (though I know what you mean) - how about something like "melodic ballad sections"? — sparklism  hey! 11:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I suspect you're right that "extension lead" may be a Britishism (I'm only fmailiar with "extension cord").  Of course, this article's in BrEng.  I've reworded to "extended guitar leads", "a melodic ballad section".  I'm not sure about "Black Sabbath-style"—the intended meaning was "heavy as Black Sabbath", rather than "in the style of Black Sabbath".  Let me think on this. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


### Release, reception and legacy
heavy metal-averse Rolling Stone - Really? Does the cited source state that Rolling Stone is 'averse' to heavy metal? Might be just better to say that RS gave a positive review.
They had a reputation for slagging metal bands at the time, but that time's long since past, and I doubt it's important to the article—I've removed it. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've done some copy-editing here - hope that's OK.
Yeah, it's great, thanks! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


### Images & media
I've checked, and all images seem OK. I'm not sure that the Tenniel image adds anything to the article, particularly since there are already plenty of images here (and I see that a previous editor agreed with me) but I don't think that affects the GA. The media clip is short and of appropriate quality (though it does contain a notice on the template about FUR)
There is a FUR, but someone has to validate it by adding "|image has rationale=yes" to the licence template (as the uploader, I can't do that myself). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 06:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


### Personnel
There are no sources in this section - could the album sleeve notes be used?
I added a cite to AllMusic. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Great! I fixed a typo there. — sparklism  hey! 07:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Under "Background" it states "Co-founding bassist Brian "Bruno" Steppenhill chose the band's name, wanting one similar to Black Sabbath's." WTF...I always thought that Ian Hill was a cofounder and original bass player, as noted here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Hill Perhaps Brian "Bruno" Steppenhill is Ian's birth name? A google search on Brian "Bruno" Steppenhill reveals little, other than the passage under discussion. Any ideas out there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.68.216.159 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
No—Stapenhill was a member of the band Atkins co-founded in 1969, and Stapenhill named it.  That band broke up in 1970, and Atkins found and joined a band called Freight that had Hill in it later that year.  This band (that Hill co-founded) took on the name Judas Priest (which Stapenhill came up with).  Whether hill was a co-founder depends on whether you consider the 1969 Preist or Freight to be the "original band". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work here. I still think that the following three lines explain it better than anything I've read on THIS page (consider revising, huh?) "Judas Priest were formed in 1969 in industrial West Bromwich, in the Black Country, by vocalist Al Atkins and bassist Brian "Bruno" Stapenhill, with John Perry on guitar and John "Fezza" Partridge on drums. Perry soon died in a road accident, and amongst the replacements the band auditioned were future Judas Priest guitarist Kenny "K. K." Downing; at the time, they turned him down in favour of 17-year-old multi-instrumentalist Ernest Chataway, who had played with Birmingham band Black Sabbath when they were still called Earth. Stapenhill came up with the name Judas Priest from Bob Dylan's song "The Ballad of Frankie Lee and Judas Priest" on the album John Wesley Harding." - The preceding passage was from the main Judas Priest page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Priest  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.68.216.159 (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I know—I wrote that.  But why would we want that extra detail here? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


### Summary
As I said above, this is a really interesting article. This is just my first read through, and there's obviously still a bit of work to be done, but nothing major that I can see right now. I'll add further commentary above as I get to study it in more detail, but I'm sure it won't be long before this is at GA. Good work! — sparklism  hey! 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sparing the time! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
This is shaping up quite nicely. You'll see I've added a few more comments above, and there's likely to be more to come. Thanks! — sparklism  hey! 10:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
All of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass this as a GA. Great work Curly Turkey, another GA to add to your impressive list! :) — sparklism  hey! 07:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Guys. GUYS. Glenn wrote the song, not Rob, so why is Rob telling Popoff what the lyrics are about? At best, he's speculating. Should we remove that? Andreas George Skinner (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I tweaked the wording.  Here's what Halford actually said:  "As there are no places for children in our modern cities, there’s also no place for the old.  And it's simply frustrating for me to see how these old human beings are forced to live their lives.  From these feelings developed the song 'Epitaph'. Besides, the lyrics and texts still have strong importance for me.  The words have to mean something for me; they have to help me articulate my feelings. Just like Glenn can make you happy or sad with his guitar playing, it has to be exactly the same with the lyrics. The sound must express what is stated in their logical content." Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 21:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

In this article, we learn that Sad Wings of Destiny is not only Black Sabbath-like, but also Sabbath-inspired with an influence of Black Sabbath, and (you'd better sit down for this) Black Sabbath-heavy and reminiscent of Sabbath! And Queen. But mostly Black Sabbath.
Is it really necessary to mention Black Sabbath *eight* different times throughout an article on another band's album? Don't get me wrong - I love Sabbath, and there's no denying their huge influence on Priest.  But repeating the same comparison so many times is really grating, and comes off as unimaginative and amateurish writing.  Even worse, it gives the impression that the sound of this album is completely derivative... which it isn't.  If we were talking about Witchfinder General, you'd have a case, but JP were never clones. Not even on Rocka Rolla where they had Sabbath's producer.
One mention should be enough - maybe two, at most.  Protip: if you really feel that the comparison helps describe specific parts or pieces, then be descriptive: instead of name-dropping, mention the qualities that evoked the comparison in the first place ('ominous', 'dark', 'brooding', 'ponderous', whatever... have at it).
79.178.70.22 (talk) 00:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to see you strip the Sabbath references down to "one, maybe two" without butchering the article.  Good luck with that. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If so many other wikipedia articles about landmark albums manage to describe the subject matter without depending so heavily on a single point of comparison, what's so preposterous about this one doing the same? At the very least, the track-by-track breakdown doesn't need those references, as long as the idea can be conveyed with descriptors.  (As a bonus, readers who aren't intimately familiar with Black Sabbath would get the point more easily, I would think.)
If, on the other hand, you feel that it's your own work which would be "butchered" by such a change... well, that's why I'm not really inclined to do it myself; too burnt out on edit wars.  Still, even if I may have come across slightly harsh up there, my suggestion isn't exactly unreasonable.79.178.70.22 (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I've dropped two mentions, but I honestly can't see dropping any of the rest. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Over the next several years Judas Priest became a prominent example of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal.
This is not generally accepted. Although a source is given that confirms this statement, one is perfectly able to come up with plenty of examples that claim the complete opposite (I can do so if necessary). If no-one vetoes this I would just delete the sentence and leave the musical classification to the Judas Priest-article.
S. Hauke (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Let's see those sources first. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 20:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if this source is appropriate, but one can find the thesis that Judas Priest are not to be ranked among the NWoBHM for example in the article "The History of the New Wave of British Heavy Metal" on ultimateclassicrock.com. At one point it reads "[...] as punk rock was ravaging the dinosaur-rock aristocracy, even more recent heavy metal standard bearers like Rainbow, Uriah Heep and Judas Priest were inching closer and closer to commercial hard rock sounds;" and later, relating to the NWoBHM, "[...] it needed a brand new generation of musicians who were willing to embrace it [= metal music], warts and all, then reinvent and carry it forward into the future." These two sentences in correlation eliminate the possibility that Priest could be an NWoBHM-band.
The whole issue becomes even more obvious in the biography "The story of Judas priest: Defenders of the faith", written by Neill Daniels. In part 3, chapter 7 it reads "[...] Judas Priest had an impact on the [NWoBHM-]period but were definitely not part of it."
And, finally, it is wikipedia itself that reads in its article about the NWoBHM that these bands were "Following the example of Judas Priest [...]" - a statement that would also place Priest outside of the NWoBHM-movement.
I hope I was able to bring some enlightening sources to the table, I can do another research on the topic if this should not be the case.S. Hauke (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I've commented out the sentence that says they were NWOBHM.  I find it hard to separate Priest from NWOBHM, but if it's disputed it would be wrong to state it as a cut-and-dry fact. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 04:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
There are two bands - Judas Priest and Motorhead - that get lumped in with the NWOBHM very often these days, but that's a kind of revisionism.  NWOBHM was a scene/movement (not a subgenre, in any case) composed of bands that were young upstarts with a purely 'underground' status around 1979, when the term was first coined.  At that time, Priest and Motorhead had multiple-album deals and were doing arena tours; the actual NWOBHM bands were mostly unsigned, and even if a select few *did* have a debut album out on an indie label, most were lucky to play the local pub twice a month or to scrape some cash for a demo.It didn't take long for the movement to gain more commercial momentum, but again, it didn't belong to the same musical generation as these two.  Priest/Motorhead had an enormous influence on the NWOBHM, and you could argue that most of those younger bands were looking up to them, but claiming that they were part of the 'new wave' just demonstrates the limits of hindsight.  No reputable *contemporary* source ever lumped them in the NWOBHM pile, and certainly I don't recall ever encountering this misinformed confusion until the early 2000s or so.  109.66.70.134 (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

According to this, the Complete Albums box set marked the first time the band authorized the release of Sad Wings on CD, and the track listing there is indeed the correct one because the sides really were mistakenly reversed when the album was first released.  The first part appears to be true, and that certainly does lend a lot of weight to the idea that that track listing is the correct one after all. I can't find an RS for it, though, so the best thing to do would be, if possible, to contact someone close to the band (or Sony) and see if we can get confirmation that that is indeed the case. I looked around on the band's website, but I couldn't find a way to get in touch with anyone close to them, and the same is true for Sony, who'd probably be much less willing to help us out anyway. Does anyone know how to get in touch with someone close to the band? Esszet (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Contacting Sony or anyone else won't help us when we don't have a published RS.  I'm surprised this hasn't come up in a bio or an interview somewhere.  Just listening to the album makes it obvious which side was meant to be Side A. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking it might be acceptable because it can easily be replicated (i.e. someone else can ask them the same question the same way), but I might have found an answer. Although the booklet that comes with the Complete Albums box (viewable in full here) doesn't say anything about it, there's something written in the lower right-hand corner on the back cover of the version of the album included in the box set, and it doesn't appear to be on other releases. Can someone with the box set see what it says? Esszet (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, it appears to be the same thing as the one here, and it just says something about playing stereo records on mono turntables or something like that. Since on second thought contacting the band probably wouldn't be good enough to be a source on here, I guess we're stuck for now. Esszet (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Sad Wings of Destiny. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/album/victim-of-changes-mw0000503036
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/album/victim-of-changes-mw0000503036
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.allmusic.com/album/sad-wings-of-destiny-mw0000201463
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041027232638/http://members.firstinter.net/markster/SADWINGSOFDESTINY.html to http://members.firstinter.net/markster/SADWINGSOFDESTINY.html
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) 14:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sparklism: I recently deleted the content found in the "Songs" subsection of the article, and I was reverted. This material, which appears to be personal analysis from some guy's book, is not at all needed in the article, and should not be said in Wiki-voice as fact. It is certainly the first article I have come across that features an in-depth analysis of each song's content and style in addition to a track list. Essentially, this "Songs" sub-section is providing the helpful function of listing the songs on the album with a bunch of flowery language thrown in. I don't need to know if a particular song is a chugging, riff-heavy rocker or A forward-looking, riff-heavy rocker or A quiet track with piano backing and Queen-like layered vocals or a heavy rocker with a complex riff. As I stated in my original comment, this is not Pitchfork. This is not the space for "music journalism" or song analysis. It should be removed, and whoever is responsible for it should start their own music blog. KidAd (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

KidAd Thanks for the ping. And thanks for leaving a message here rather than reverting, good form. The major content contributor was Curly Turkey, whose userpage now shows a retired banner. Let's see if we get any response to the ping before carrying out anything drastic. Thanks — sparklism  hey! 09:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think I've touched this article (are you getting confused with Curly "JFK" Turkey who has done a lot of rock / metal GAs and FAs?) Anyway, from a cursory look, the song information looks like it's cited mostly to Martin Popoff's source. I would recommend instead of having an individual section for each song, to keep the section but trim it down to maybe two paragraphs - one for each side. While I'm here, I can't help thinking that the images are off-topic and excuses to put something in for a GA - in particular, the appearance of an early 1970s picture of Joan Baez is rather tenuous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Ritchie333 yes I did get confused, and reverted myself. Sorry if I woke you, but thanks for your input! — sparklism  hey! 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sparklism:@Ritchie333: Thanks for your help! KidAd (talk) 18:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
KidAd, it doesn't look like we will get a response from Curly Turkey at this point. What do you think to Ritchie333's suggestions above? Thanks. — sparklism  hey! 07:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@Sparklism: I think this fix is appropriate. KidAd (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)