Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Guildensternenstein/Harold Rosenbaum

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

User:Guildensternenstein/Harold Rosenbaum

Alright, this requires some explanation. The other day, I went to a friend's choir concert. At said concert, I got a program, which listed all the typical program-y things, as well as the bios of the directors. The biography for Harold Rosenbaum--the directory of the choir that I went to see--is perhaps the most unintentially funny thing I've read in a long time. It's so fantasically vain, so poorly written, and essentially just ennumerates in excruciating detail all of the many awards (most of which I've never heard of) Mr. Rosenbaum has accumulated over the years. It also reeks of being written by Mr. Rosenbaum himself, as whomever reads this will likely see. I've reproduced exactly what the program biography said. I basically just want to know if anyone finds this as funny as I do. If so, I think I might flesh/work/change this into an article on Harold Rosenbaum, using this bio's clear and blatant self-praise and vanity as a starting point. —Sir Guildensternenstein 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit: article is here, I somehow linked it wrong. —Sir Guildensternenstein 16:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say this is one of those things that is only funny in the context you read it in. Also, this article might be border-line vanity, since the subject matter is not well known or a public figure. He doesn't have a wikipedia article, for example, and probably noone else on this wiki has ever heard of him. I'm not really sure what notability guidelines we use, so I'd suggest you get an admins opinion regarding his is notablity.

But, if you feel like expanding it, here is his personal website and here is an online bio from one of his choirs --Mnb'z 15:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. You think someone as "notable" as Mr. Rosenbaum would have his own Wikipedia page. The fact that he doesn't (my Lit. professor from Germany last year who's written a whopping one book in all 30 years of his academic career has his own page, though I think he wrote that himself, too) just makes it all the funnier. —Sir Guildensternenstein 23:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as A) no one will ever review this, and B) I'm not really looking for a review anyway, whomever is in charge of such things can just delete this Pee Review thing entirely. So yeah. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 21:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll do a quick little review. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Humour:	8	I found it quite funny. You've got some good humour in this one.
Concept:	8	A good concept. A lot of potential. (Despite possible notability issues.)
Prose and formatting:	9	I didn't notice any errors. There's maybe a bit too much white space, but I'm not going to bugger you with that.
Images:	0	No images.
Miscellaneous:	8	I felt like giving you an 8 in the miscellaneous section. See it as an overall rate.
Final Score:	33	I liked it. I may have been a bit lenient, but I'm mostly doing this to get it off the queue. Still, with the right motivation and some additional inspiration, this could become a very good article.
Reviewer:	—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems Cajek fixed it up a little bit. This is the updated version of my review:

Humour:	8	I found it quite funny. You've got some good humour in this one.
Concept:	8	A good concept. A lot of potential. (Despite possible notability issues.)
Prose and formatting:	9.5	I didn't notice any errors.
Images:	6	You have a nice image. A few more would make it even better.
Miscellaneous:	8	I felt like giving you an 8 in the miscellaneous section. See it as an overall rate.
Final Score:	39.5	I liked it. I may have been a bit lenient, but whatever. With the right motivation and some additional inspiration, this could become a very good article, and who knows, maybe even a featured article.
Reviewer:	—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Socky, I don't know how much experience you have with reviewing, but you HAVE to give advice. You can't have just one liners, it's insulting to the author. Peace out,   Le Cejak • <16:32 May 23, 2009>

I know that, but the author explicitly said he didn't want a review anymore, so I'm mainly doing this to get it off the queue. It's all up there, somewhere (specifically look above my first review and read the final comment of my first review). —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I should give a bit of advice, so here goes.

Advice:

Well, maybe you can add a few more sections. And hyperlinks, it obviously needs more hyperlinks. A few more images could really make this article come to life, like one where we see him conducting a choir. (Also, I'm aware the current image isn't actually him, but that doesn't really matter.) Well, besides what shouldn't be much more than a finishing touch, the article is just about done.

Hope that helps. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)