# Talk:Danganronpa Another Episode: Ultra Despair Girls

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Hope's Peak Academy Logo.svg
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Danganronpa Another Episode: Ultra Despair Girls/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: IanTEB (talk · contribs) 21:25, 24 August 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 03:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Was reading this recently and thought it was lacking a bit compared to other Danganronpa articles; glad to see this has been improved. Will be taking a look over this in the coming days. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:32, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
@IanTEB:


### Six GA Criteria
1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.
2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.
3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the game.
4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.
5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.
6. Article uses multiple fair use media with proper rationale, though one is iffy.


### Lead
I feel this sentence: "Ultra Despair Girls is a spin-off in the Danganronpa series, set in between the events of Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc (2010) and Danganronpa 2: Goodbye Despair (2012)." should be placed before console info given the game should be introduced before ports are discussed.

 Done


### Gameplay
"For example, Guard Monokumas use a shield that can be countered with Knockback, and using Dance on alarm-equipped Siren Monokumas will lure other nearby enemies.[1][2]" I feel this is a bit extraneous given the prior sentence already clarifies certain types of Monokumas are affected by different bullets.

I believe providing specific examples helps highlight how enemies have different effects to certain bullets than what other enemies might have. It also helps build stronger context for the attached GIF, without needing to needlessly expand the caption.


### Plot
-"a symbol of their developed friendship, Toko decides to join her." Is this stated directly in-game? If not, I'd axe it to avoid OR.

It's strongly implied, but I've changed it to "a token of their friendship", since this is explicitly stated.


### Development
-Is Shade a company? It's unclear who they are as of now.

 Changed to in cooperation with another studio, Shade.
-The fourth paragraph discusses elements introduced and discussed before elements of the first chronologically, which makes the chronology confusing. I'd re-order this if possible.

Not quite sure what you mean here.
Information in paragraph four pertains to information that happens before what is discussed in paragraph one. Namely, in paragraph one, it discusses that they settled on the action-adventure genre and the different playstyles, but the reasons why they settled on the action-adventure genre are several paragraphs later in paragraph four. I feel these would be better discussed together. Hopefully this clarifies my stance. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
-"the few alive Danganronpa characters" I'd clarify this is regarding Trigger Happy Havoc (at least if my assumption of what is being discussed here is correct)

This is my original research, but concept pieces in the artbook suggest that the character Peko Pekoyama (a swordsman from the second game) may have been considered for the cast. The developers also don't mention speficially first game in the source, so I believe they were referring to the franchise in whole.


### Release
-Looks good


### Reception
--"called the title amazing as Danganronpa, even if bad as a video game." I'd reword this since this could potentially be unclear.

 Reworded to thought the title succeeded as a Danganronpa entry, even if fails from a gameplay perspective. Please let me know your thoughts.
-"Particularly, the game received analysis for its portrayal of Kotoko Utsugi as a victim of child sexual abuse." Bit of OR since only one source significantly discusses Kotoko in this way. 

 Broadened to a statement regarding all the antagonists
-A lot of sources are discussed in comparison to one another, which I believe falls afoul of OR. For instance, many say they agree or disagree with other sources, when most do not acknowledge other reviewers in their own reviews. I would re-word this to be more neutral. 

The definition of disagree (from Google; thanks Google): "have or express a different opinion." I don't believe acknowledgement of the disagreeing party is necessary for usage of the word, at least not for general statements such as Reviewers disagreed on the quality of the puzzle rooms. I agree that it might come across as original research when directly framed to a specific critics, though. I changed Other critics agreed with their sentiments about the pacing to Other critics held similar sentiments about the pacing. If you have specific sentences you have problems with, please let me know.


### Other media
-I'm not sure the title card image meets fair use rationales given it's just text on a black screen and purely decorative in nature. I'd remove this one. 

Since it solely consists of simple geometric shapes and text, the image is public domain and does not require a free use rationale.
That's my bad, I assumed it was fair use; should be fine. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)


### Overall
Looks solid overall. Let me know when the above are addressed. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:41, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Pokelego999: Thank you for the quick review. I believe I have addressed all your points, but was a little confused by what specific issues you have with the fourth paragraph of the development section. IanTEB (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Spotchecked sources: 100, 84, 12, 104, 94, 1. What is the reliability of THEM Anime Reviews? I am unfamiliar with them. Otherwise your above fixes and the spotcheck looks fine. Once this minor quibble is addressed it should be good to go to pass. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:24, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
@Pokelego999: I'm still slightly confused by what you mean with fourth paragraph, since gameplay was only discussed in the first three paragraphs of the development section. Regardless, I've arranged all gameplay info chronologically into a new Game design sub-section (with some new text), which I hope solves your issues. I was always unfamiliar with THEM Anime Reviews, but they are listed as reliable on the Anime/manga WikiProject's online sources list. I'm not sure if all conclusions on the page are accurate, but the rationale for this site seems to revolve around its academic usage and its long history. I could buy that it's reliable as an authoritative source. IanTEB (talk) 23:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
@IanTEB looks good. Happy to pass. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)