There are two reasons I procrastinated on reading this article:
1. I was worried I wouldn't learn anything new, and therefore get really bored with it
2. I was worried the author (Jon Hotten) wouldn't do Queen II justice and give it the praise it deserves
The article wasn't terrible, but it wasn't the best thing I'd ever read, either. I was hoping for in-depth breakdowns of the album as best as Brian and Roger could remember, but the author strayed a bit more than I would have liked (why he mentioned Queen getting a lot of shit in Australia back then is a mystery to me). But that's strictly my opinion. Also, there were grammatical and factual errors, but that might have been a copy-editing issue. For instance, there's a note about Brian playing the national anthem on the roof of Buckingham Palace, and then a little later, "Even the queen knows who Queen is!" Like, no shit, right? I would hope that Queen would have been brought to Her Majesty's attention well before June 2002. Also, Axl Rose was never taken on as Queen's vocalist...
What I liked a lot about the article were the extensive quotes from Brian and Roger. The author didn't include microscopic tidbits to make it sound like he was too into his writing and just adding those bits because his boss probably told him to, John's retirement was just briefly mentioned, and Freddie's death didn't suddenly become the focus of the whole article. And, of course, room was made to talk about how influential and important Queen II actually is to fans and other famous musicians, because it seems to ALWAYS get over-shadowed by A Night At The Opera - resulting in me resenting that album a bit.
The magazine also promised never before seen photos! But they've been circulating online for years because Mick Rock took them, so that would likely only hold true for the utmost casual, not-terribly-commited fan.