Talk:Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Haleth (talk · contribs) 04:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Taking down notes on areas of improvement in the mean time, so watch this space. Haleth (talk) 04:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I have been quite thorough in my assessment. Mostly just need to better organize information, work on improving some prose, and better clarity for the reader when quoting/referencing the developers about aspects of the game. Take as much time as you need, I am happy to wait. Haleth (talk) 01:36, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead

 * - My impression, from reading the sources, is that Kodaka decided to add hints about a sequel, which up to that point Spike Chunsoft had no planned, before he finished writing the novel. Am I correct? If so, maybe the sentence could be rephrased, it doesn't quite flow well for me.

Gameplay

 * I noticed that the entirety of the Gameplay section is exclusively cited to the developer's website, a primary source. Could you cite a secondary source, from any of the reviews under reception section which does discuss the gameplay comprehensively, to broadly support each relevant paragraph about gameplay?


 * please whitelink it.
 * Done
 * The word "styles" gives me more of an impression of different movesets which can be changed or swapped within a level. I think "mode" would be more apt, but how do most of the English secondary sources describe the gameplay?
 * Done
 * Can be phrased better, in my opinion. What benefits, in brief terms, do "Hope Fragments" provide the player? Is it functionally the same as the description of the Hope Fragments in the last paragraph, "allowing players to bond more easily with characters than in the main story mode"?
 * Done
 * Could you provide a brief but better explanation in the prose on what do you mean by interacting? Interacting with what or who?
 * Done
 * Could you briefly explain what monocoins are first, then followed by the explanation on how they can be located in a level?
 * Done
 * Can you clarify the prose? Are these the same items as the evidence from crime scene in the following sentence?
 * Done
 * Hangman Gambit is suddenly mentioned without any context. Could you briefly explain it and Life Cycle as components of Class Trials, like how you explained Daily Life and Deadly Life within the context of School Life earlier in the paragraph?
 * Done
 * Should be rephrased, maybe just say "Bullet Time Battle" is brought back/returns with similar gameplay mechanic, though it is renamed etc etc".
 * Done


 * - "several minigames"
 * Done


 * - is this an optional or compulsory minigame? Anyway, maybe just say, players may adopt a virtual pet.
 * Done


 * Brief explanation of who Monomi is in gameplay since she is mentioned before the reader reaches "plot" section
 * Done

Development

 * - initially reluctant to develop any further entries for the Danganronpa brand, or initially relucant to write the Danganronpa Zero novel?
 * Revised
 * -> "conceded"? Tone comes across as more of an admission.
 * Revised
 * - might need a rewrite. I am not sure what the sentence is trying to tell me as the reader.
 * -> relevant to
 * -> While "he personally prefers"?
 * The way the Twitter source is presented, feels like an inappropriate WP:SYNTH to me. All the author did on that tweet was interspersing the kanji words for Hajime Hinata and Izuru Kamukura together, which is cool, but I don't feel there's any context provided for the reader from his tweet as he did not provide any proper commentary. To properly support the sentence, maybe an in-line citation with a quote from Danganronpa Zero, or better yet, a secondary source which explicitly calls out the foreshadowing in Danganronpa Zero would be better?
 * -> omit up
 * -> Is that the setting used in Island Mode, or a different one? Is that how the developers explain the purpose of the post-game Island Mode = more content?
 * -> Needs a rewrite. How do these characters confuse returning players? What is the purpose behind confusing players? To add more intrigue to the story, or for the developers' own satisfaction?
 * Maybe first combine all relevant behind-the-scenes info for Hajime and group them together in a few sentences, before we start talking about his rival and love interest?
 * -> Maybe combine this tidbit about the voice actress with the "to confuse gamers" part as recounted by Kodaka?
 * Nagito background info is also in another paragraph. Maybe combine it with the "absolute rival" part? Does absolute rival need to be marked in parenthesis? I see the original source is in Spanish, so the statement is not technically a direct quote?
 * Done
 * -> I thought Junko is a female. Is it referring to Monokuma/another male villain, or a typo?
 * Fixed

Release

 * Voice actor info, even if it is for the English localization, appears under "Release" paragraph. I believe it should all be grouped under "Development" along with info about the Japanese VA.
 * -> The sentence reads as if we are still in 2014. Do we know whether it was ever released by NIS America eventually? Any sources?
 * Merged

Reception

 * Reception section initially names both the author and the source that published their articles, but by the time the prose reaches the likes of Polygon and GameRevolution, the authors' names are dropped entirely. I think it should be consistent.
 * -> I suggest another word which emphasizes their divergent opinion from Polygon about accessibility for franchise newcomers?
 * Done
 * -> I feel the sentence lack impact. Is that supposed to mean Touch Arcade named those two as their favorites, but enjoyed the others nonetheless?
 * Done
 * -> originality of their characterization, or visual design, or both?
 * Revised
 * -> Maybe swap it around, criticism and then praise? I thought the tone of the paragraph is meant to convey a somewhat less positive tone in contrast to the first paragraph.
 * Revised
 * -> I don't believe Hardcore Gamer actually markets themselves as such
 * Revised
 * I am not sure why further comments by GameSpot and GameRevolution about class trials are moved into the third paragraph even though the second paragraph appears to be entirely focused on that aspect.
 * Third paragraph may need a better focus, perhaps a rewrite, since the first paragraph appears to be about the writing/characters, and the second is dwelling exclusively on class trial gameplay. None of the commentary under reception seems to have any critique specifically about Daily Life/Dead Life, which are only mentioned once in gameplay but is noted as a major component of the game.
 * Done. Rearranged such sections
 * I think Game Informer's comments about the game's writing should've been in the first paragraph to keep it consistent.
 * Done

Other media and appearances

 * No in-line citations for the sentences preceding the one about Dark Horse.
 * Added.


 * -> Is the sentence trying to say, the game itself has been included in xxx and xxx compilations, or adapted into some other media which are included in xxx and xxx compilations?
 * Revised


 * add "titled" before "The End of Hope's Peak High School".
 * Done

I tried revising everything. I'll see if I missed anything tomorrow considering I work way early in the morning. Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Take your time. Haleth (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Did more revisions. There is a huge Siliconera article centered around this game so I used it as extra source for the gameplay, I added the two voice actors for Nagito in development and revised other sentences you pointed out. I referenced the other media and rearranged reception. If there are still certain issues that need to be covered could you point them out? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Round 2
Ok, I noticed that it has received some copy edits from another reviewer in addition to your edits. I'll start back from the top. Haleth (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * -> a mentor of the main characters

Gameplay

 * -> I think this sentence lacks context. It could be expanded to briefly explain that these mini-games are side stuff which are not part of the main gameplay modes described in the earlier paragraphs.

Development

 * Since release is now merged into development, I suggest changing the heading to "Development and release". I've seen this practice at many other GA articles.
 * Done
 * -> I checked the source and it does not actually say that villains who are continuously resurrected like the Joker is specifically a "Western" thing. PS: X-Men's Magneto is also mentioned in the same sentence. If a point is to be made about the sentence, it should be that the examples which were brought up are notable/renowned villain characters in pop culture.
 * Revised

Reception
Finished the revisions. Also thanks to Horsesizedduck for the copyedit.Tintor2 (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with individual reviewers not being named, though I noticed that gendered pronouns are sometimes used to refer to the authors published by a source have been used in some of the commentary. In that case I think, it might be appropriate or helpful if the reviewer is mentioned by name, or pronouns not used if we are referring to the publication broadly. Although, I like how this is presented:
 * Revised
 * Hardcore Gamer is still referred to as a "Japanese game specialist".
 * Done
 * GameSpot should be in italics.
 * Done
 * -> add "to" after due.
 * Done
 * -> suggest good writing which flesh out the characters' thoughts, or something along these lines.
 * Done
 * -> despite the more engaging narrative.
 * Done
 * -> few character bondings, "worthwhile" should replace "notable" as I believe that is the sentiment the reviewer was aiming for.
 * Done.
 * I've addressed the few remaining grammatical errors and typos you've overlooked as they were fairly minor. Passing the review. Haleth (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)