Template:Did you know nominations/Aaron Schoenke

Aaron Schoenke

 * ... that although an actor, as a filmmaker better known for his fan films about Batman, Aaron Schoenke was described by filmschoolrejects.com as being "in another league altogether"?
 * Reviewed: Gang Forward

Created/expanded by MichaelQSchmidt (talk). Self nom at 10:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)



I can't find the source that backs up the hook. Please enlighten me, or rewrite the hook. It should also be mentioned that "The hook fact must be cited in the article with an inline citation to a reliable source" Mentoz86 (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I'm sorry, but article was created on 29 April, while you did not nominate it before 6 May. Nomination must be done within 5 days of creation or 5x expansion, so this one fails the criteria. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, misread. I got it all wrong, you moved it from userspace on 2 May, so that's ok. But you shouldn't add this nomination to 29 April, 2 May is the correct here.
 * Did both. I modified and sourced the first sentence in Aaron Schoenke, adding the citations that review his work. One in particular states in praising the filmmaker, states "everything from the make-up design to the choreography is enough to place it head and shoulders above other fan films" and "Schoenke is in another league altogether." I also then modified hook above accordingly.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 04:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I still have some concerns, I'm afraid. First of - the text hook from the hook is not in the article (in another league altogether) as far as I can see. Second: Is Film School Rejects regarded as a reliable source? I have no problems with it being used as a source in the article, but the hook should be backed up by a reliable source. And a couple of minor details about the article: Is it necessary with all those refs in the lead, when that is almost the same sentance as the first in "Recognition"? And shouldn't the "Filmography" section also be cited? Mentoz86 (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just happy to address your concerns. I have now removed unneccessary extra citations from the lede. As it is his Batman fan film works that are receiving recognition from fan film fans, and not his work as an actor, I had modified and sourced that sentence in "recognition". We have to recognize that as fan films receive attention from fan sites, we have a slight difficulty in that we need his own words from interviews by a couple of those fan sites to show "fan" or "cult" following recognition of his work... but naturally having this recognition of his works supported by otherwise reliable sources such as Film Threat, Los Angeles Times, National Post, MTV News, Blogcritics, Huffington Post.  As noted, I have redistributed those lede citations. But also, I have have modified the hook again to show the fan following and fan recognition. However, feel free to adjust those you feel are overkill to showing this wider fan recognition, or please offer a suggestion for a better hook.
 * As for the filmography section, it is long established that a listing of films is verifiable to the work itself without each being sourced one-by-one-by one in a truly overkill manner, and such intentional "lack" has not prevented some of them from becoming GAs or FAs... or we'd have real problems with every other article on an actor or director (For examples, see filmography sections elsewhare, or any others actually).  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 23:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg My concerns are adressed, and this one is good to go. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)