Talk:Hajime Hinata

Note

This is an alternative name for Izuru Kamukura, the subject of a deleted and redirected page. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 06:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hajime Hinata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 10:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm gonna review this.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC) Sorry. I'm kinda basy in RL. So, for the lead.

1. Con you briefly present Junko and Mukuro?
   1. Done
2. Can you add something more about his reception? Nothing too specific, but something to understand why he received praise and so on.
   1. Done.

@Tintor2: As I said, I was kinda busy, but I'll read the rest later.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: No problem.Tintor2 (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

• " These two contrasting ideas are intensely discussed within the series". Sounds kinda superfluous.
  • Removed
• "In retrospect, Kodaka was proud of how the segments of the video game were developed. While preferring the first Danganronpa over the second one, the writer feels more moved by the second half of Goodbye Despair". Ditto.
  • Removed. I accidentally added this.

@Tintor2: Good work. For know, instructive and well-written.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• • @TeenAngels1234: Done revision.Tintor2 (talk) 12:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
• " Kodaka was satisfied with how anime staff from Lerche handled the writing and design, or appearance, of Izuru's character". Ditto. It sounds trivial to me.
  • Trimmed.
• "..who, Kodaka wanted to make clear, was a different character from the artificial intelligence of the same name". Can you explain better? I honestly can't see the link with the rest of the paragraph.
  • Revised. Basically, there are two identical characters named Chiaki Nanami but the one from the game Goodbye Despair happens to an artificial intelligence while the one from the anime is a human. The big twist of Goodbye Despair game takes place in a virtual reality while the anime focused on who were the characters in their real life. Chiaki is kinda like an exception (kinda like Rei Ayanami II) as she dies in the anime so the AI is not like a perfect copy.
• The first part of "Development", basically everything until the end of the quote, sounds more pertinent for "Characterization", or something like this. I suggest breaking and transfer this part into a whole new section.
  • Done.
• Nothing about Casting.

@Tintor2:Well done.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Thanks for the review.Tintor2 (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Great. Since the first part is different from the second one, try with "Characterization and development".
  • Done
• "As this happens, Chiaki is killed by Junko, which causes Izuru to start to cry. Following this, Izuru suggests erasing his memories to meet "despair" alongside Chiaki's mates, setting up the events of Goodbye Despair". Can you explain better?
  • Relaborated
• "In Future Arc, from the anime... everyone who died in the virtual world." Same.
  • Relaborated
• Generally speaking, try to simplify the things in "Appearances". It was difficult to follow all the events explained and all the names for me.

Tintor2 That's all for now.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• • @TeenAngels1234: You see the anime of Danganronpa is kinda tricky. The Despair arc is a prequel to the game Goodbye Despair. The Future and Hope arc are a sequel to the game while the OVA is what happens between Future and Hope. Tried elaborating that there.Tintor2 (talk) 11:53, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• "The Gamer listed Izuru–Hajime as the sixth best Danganronpa character, saying that despite his chaotic background, his efforts to redeem himself make him a "complex hero". Sounds more pertinent in Critical.
• Same for the two CBR comments.
  • Done
  • Done
• "Manga News compared him with Kyoko Kirigiri based on how both can't remember their pasts, as well their similar talents." It doesn't say anything about its Reception. Try to move it in Characterization.
  • Done.
• Same for: "DualShockers claimed that Hajime dramatically changed during the game's narrative, despite the dark story, evidenced by how he bonds with the other cast members" and for "Due to his dark characterization and how he lacks Hajime's humanity, Manga.Tokyo compared Izuru with Star Wars villain Darth Vader, although the reviewer felt Hajime's corruption to be more forced in comparison to Vader's".
  • Done

@Tintor2: So, basically you just have to eventually move information. Let me read the article one last time and, if nothing else comes up, I'll promote it. --TeenAngels1234 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Thanks for the review especially when you are busy.Tintor2 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tintor2: You're welcome, really. I'll read it tomorrow.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

• "Both of the character's voice actors have become popular. Nevertheless, his two voice actors were praised". Sounds like a repetition.
  • My mistake
• "... during his past persona". There's no better word than "during"? I mean, at least in the original language (Latin, or also Italian, my native one), "during a persona" doesn't have sense. Maybe "with his past persona" is better?
  • I think I removed it.
• "Early in the creation of the game, Kodaka refrained from explaining the reasoning behind Hajime's name". It sounds superfluous to me.
  • Removed.
• "where Hajime starts playing a video game when the player was already controlling Hajime". Can you explain better?
  • Done. The character plays an actual video game titled Twlight Syndrome
• "Characterization and development". I think that critical analysis should be moved to the bottom of the section.
  • Done
• "the famous video game". Famous sounds a little non-neutral.
  • Done
• Can you simplify reviewers' comments? They explain a lot of things, but they confused me a little. Especially in the first half of the first paragraph.
  • Done

@Tintor2: The rest sounds good to me.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Perfect. Good job.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)