# Talk:Tin Machine II

Image:Tin-machine2.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 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 00:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
FUR added. Cheers, Ian Rose 01:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Tin Machine II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130324210011/http://www.blender.com/guide/back-catalogue/53982/tin-machine-ii.html to http://www.blender.com/guide/back-catalogue/53982/tin-machine-ii.html
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tin Machine II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 13:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

It is fully appropriate for me to be the reviewer since I took on the sequel and this is the only album ahead of mine in the GANs queue! --K. Peake 13:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)


### Infobox and lead
Shouldn't the img caption use British instead of European per the body referencing the former version of the cover?
Late 1989 – early 1990; late 1990 → 1989 – 1990 under recording, not only to avoid repetition of 1990 but also since only months should be used next to years, not later or early
Replace hlist with bullet points per Template:Infobox album
Why is hard rock listed as a genre but blues isn't?
Pipe London to London Recordings
Does it really need to be noted in the infobox what song Hugh Padgham produced?
Remove wikilink on studio album
"American guitarist Reeves Gabrels and" → "Reeves Gabrels on guitar and" for consistency
"recorded the album in" → "recorded it in"
"It was produced by the band" → "The production was handled by Tin Machine"
"the band's debut album," → "their eponymous debut studio album (1989),"
"Tin Machine II musically retains a" → "the album retains a"
"compared to their debut," → "compared to its predecessor,"
"The cover artwork featured" → "The cover artwork features"
All above done
Can't you mention what critics were divided towards and shouldn't this come before singles/commercial performance?
Will come back – zmbro (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Almost forgot this, how's that look? – zmbro (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
"releasing Black Tie White Noise the following year." → "releasing his eighteenth studio album, Black Tie White Noise (1993)."
Wikilink reissued
Pipe vinyl to Phonograph record
Pipe CD to Compact disc
Above four done


### Background
Remove wikilink on Tin Machine
"lineup included guitarist" → "lineup included American guitarist"
Introduce Tin Machine as eponymous debut album
"the energy of the band," → "the energy of Tin Machine,"
"The band initially received" → "The band were responded to with"
"promoting the album," → "promoting Tin Machine,"
"initially received mixed reviews" → "was met with mixed reviews"
"noted that the band" → "noted that Tin Machine"
"the band took a break" → "Tin Machine took a break"
All done


### Production
Retitle to Recording and production
"Tin Machine maintained the same lineup as their debut," → "They maintained the lineup of Tin Machine," because the debut has not been mentioned in this section, but you want to avoid repetitiveness
"The band played an" → "Tin Machine played an"
"on 4 November" → "on 4 November 1989"
"work with Tin Machine" → "work as part of Tin Machine"
Wikilink reissue
"the group signed with" → "Tin Machine signed with"
Pipe London Records to London Recordings
"to three new tracks." → "to record three new tracks."
"working with them he" → "working with them, he"
"the debut album," → "their debut album,"
Pipe mix to Audio mixing (recorded music)
"for the band's debut album." → "for Tin Machine." to avoid writing debut too much
"It was then" → "The song was then" because it was not mentioned in the previous sentence
"We really got off on it". if the sentence ends at this point, then the full-stop should be inside the quote marks
All done


### Music and lyrics
Again, use something other than "the debut" since this is a new section
"than their debut," → "than the debut,"
Is schmaltz really a genre? If not, it should still be mentioned but after them.
Wikilink "You Belong in Rock n' Roll"
"that at the time he" → "that at the time, he"
Pipe industrial to Industrial music
Remove overly obvious wikilink on Thailand
"show the band" → "show the band to be"
Wikilink "Baby Universal"
All done


### Release
Retitle to Release and promotion
"for the album's American release," → "for the American release of Tin Machine II,"
"Bowie floated the idea" → "He teased the idea"
Mention the name of the label in place of "the record company" since it has not been written out in this section
"of Hunt Sales' shoulders" → "of Sales' shoulders"
[a][4] should be after the first comma instead
"It peaked at" → "The album peaked at"
"where it peaked at number 126" → "peaking at number 126"
"was issued in November" → "was issued the next month"
"The band supported" → "Tin Machine supported"
"and ran through" → "and ran through until" or something similar
[37] should not only be invoked once for the five sentences; maybe do every two apart from the last one, where it is invoked a third time?
Specify if "in America" means North America or the US
Pipe ABC In Concert to In Concert (American TV series)
"series (aired on 6 September 1991)." → "series, aired on 6 September 1991."
Add release years of the songs
All done


### Critical reception
MusicHound giving a "woof" haha!!!
Ikr xD
"received mixed reviews" → "was met with mixed reviews"
Mention the name of the Q reviewer
"this album did not" → "the album does not"
"such individual tracks such as" → "individual tracks such as"
"similarly called it" → "similarly called the album"
"Steve Appleford found it" → "Steve Appleford found Tin Machine II"
Either mentioned the Billboard reviewer by name or use "a Billboard writer"
"were ready to hear it." → "were ready to listen."
All done


### Legacy
Shouldn't the Pegg citation be invoked after the second sentence as well as the last since only once for three doesn't seem right?
"noting that it" → "noting how it" to avoid overusage of "that"
"on the band's debut" → "on Tin Machine"
"states that it" → "states that the album"
"than their debut" → "than the debut"
"Furthermore, he highlights" → "Furthermore, Pegg highlights"
"and panning "Stateside"" → "while panning "Stateside""
Remove "the same year" because this is confusing and also not needed when the year is mentioned earlier in the sentence
"about the rerelease." → "about the re-release."
All done


### Track listing
Good


### Personnel
Pipe vibrators to Slicer (guitar effect)
Done


### Charts
Like last time, shouldn't Billboard be in brackets for the chart?
Done


### Notes
Good


### References
Copyvio score looks fantastic at 14.5%; top job!!!
Nice move on the archiving here
Fix MOS:CAPS issues with refs 9 and 31, plus author-link Jon Pareles on the former
Done
Why does ref 36 cite pp. 204-204 rather than p. 204?
Supposed to be 203-204; fixed
Wikilink Visible Ink Press on ref 39
Pipe Q to Q (magazine) on ref 40
Remove staff author from refs 46 and 47, as this parameter is only for anyone named
Author-link Reeves Gabrels on ref 49
Wikilink Official Charts Company on ref 56
Above five done


#### Sources
Good


### External links
Good


### Final comments and verdict
 On hold until all of the issues are fixed after this quick review; I have left the pics relevant criterion unchecked because I am unsure about the caption for the cover until I see your response. --K. Peake 11:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Kyle Peake All done. Thanks for reviewing! – zmbro (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Zmbro Refreshing to have a review where we appear to have not come to any disagreements, but you forgot to remove the title of the song that Hugh Padgham produced from the infobox and the revision of critical reception in the lead is great! --K. Peake 17:26, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Kyle Peake Agreed. And ope my bad must've not seen that one. Fixed! – zmbro (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Zmbro  Pass now, looks good and the quickness of your response definitely deserves kudos! --K. Peake 17:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)