# Talk:Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (GBA video game)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (GBA video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 07:18, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 19:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:59, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Overall the article is a solid start, but there's some weak prose that's unclear throughout that needs to be addressed a bit.

Prose:
It was suggested that they work on a Tony Hawk game, believing it to be high risk due in part to being such an important brand for Activision. Who suggested it? And the second part of the sentence doesn't connect to the first. Reading the source, it wasn't "hey this is a random suggestion, how about take on a risky property?" It was an opportunity but a challenging one and they didn't know if Activision would bite.
Is the sentence better now?
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 features six levels, including five from the console versions of the game, as well as one from the first game, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, and a secret stage. That's seven levels. If the secret stage doesn't count, then it needs to be set off in text rather than here where it directly sounds like it's included in the six numbering.
Fixed
that this would require more than 100 megs of storage I don't know what megs are here, and the link doesn't help. I assume it's supposed to be short for megabytes, in which case that should just be linked instead.
Fixed
As a general thing, I noticed that a lot of paragraphs begin without clearly stating the object, which can be a tad confusing and certainly sounds more informal ("It began as a sprite-based game"—what did? "Unlike other versions [...] this game", "When they sent the game"—when who? Etc.
I believe I've fixed this
While they felt it looked appropriate and was "technically impressive," the level design was criticized, with one QA member saying that the development team "[doesn't] understand how to build levels at all." Conte stated that they were brought on as consultants, going through each level to add elements that reward skillful play. The quotes here are doing the opposite of what they should be, reducing clarity in what exactly the issue was. Reading the original source it seems like they felt that the GBA team hadn't understood why the levels were constructed the way they were and elements that made a THPS game feel like Tony Hawk, and I don't really get that from the Wikipedia text (it just sounds like they shit on the levels with no elaboration.)
I tweaked it after re-reading the interview. Is this better?
The details on the sales performance of the game are awkwardly sandwiched in between critical reception. Either it needs its own paragraph or it should get appended to the end of development when the release dates are discussed.
Moved to Development and release
I don't think the reception section is long enough it needs the "visuals and technology" subhead.
Removed
References:
What makes MeriStation, Gamekult, and Nintendojo reliable?
The three are listed on the RS page. I checked their use on scholar.google.com, and found all three cited multiple times each.
There's some extensive discussion on MeriStation and Gamekult, but Nintendojo's two marked reviews in WP:VG/S don't really have much in the way of support. What publications are referencing its work? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)
Looking into it, I've found multiple books that cite it, including "Playing to Wiin: Nintendo and the Video Game Industry's Greatest Comeback", "Super Power, Spoony Bards, and Silverware: The Super Nintendo Entertainment System", and "Japanese Culture Through Videogames". It was originally created by Peer Schneider, who served as editor-in-chief. It's perhaps not the strongest of sources, especially since Peer likely left before this review (since he started IGN64 which I believe well predated the GBA), but the fact that articles posted after this review are cited in published works makes me believe that Nintendojo is a reliable source, especially since I've not found any articles from them I would say raise any red flags. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Current ref 21 looks like it's malformed and doesn't have the proper title.
Fixed
and was considered one of the best Game Boy Advance games, ranked among the top games on the platform by GameSpot [...] the giant list of refs should be bundled instead of breaking up the text so badly.
Bundled
Spotchecked references made to current refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 25, 35, and 40.
Ref 2 does not adequately support the list of tricks players can perform.
Ref 3 doesn't mention crouching.
Added Total Games Guide to... Game Boy Advance as a source for both crouching and the list of tricks
Further checks were fine.
Images:
Is there a reason File:THPS2GBA gameplay.png is aligned right instead of left? In either Vector versions it seems like sandwiching issues with the infobox are limited outside of extremely wide resolutions.
I have an extremely wide monitor; I also generally align right unless I see some issue with that where left alignment is superior.
I don't think NFCC#8 is met with File:THPS2 concept art.png and its rationale as it currently stands. The caption is purely illustrative, and the sketches are so abstract I'm not sure how it helpfully explains how the game works. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
I opted to remove it, as it's indeed a little hard to read.
@David Fuchs: I believe I have addressed the points raised - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I've performed a further copyedit, but I think the article meets GA criteria at this point, so I'm passing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)


### Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (GBA video game)
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to get it to featured status, and believe that it is not far from it. Thanks, Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin: I will be reviewing the article for suitability to submit as an FAC.
Image review:
File:THPS2GBA box.png — Fair use
File:THPS2GBA gameplay.png — Fair use
Based on my image review, the illustrations used seem to be appropriate for a potential FAC.
Is Pocket Tactics a reliable source?  According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, there are inconclusive decisions about it.  If we can, we should try to find high-quality sources for FACs.
You may want to make sure the web sources are archived by running the WP:IABOT tool.
"While" and "due to" are words to watch out for when preparing an FAC.  I would change instances of "while" and "do to".  Please refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch and User:Gog the Mild/Misc#GAN/FAC checklist.  When I prepare an article, especially for FAC, I find this user's checklist helpful.
Numerical citations need to be put in order, for example, the citations after the sentence Other actions include jumping, braking, crouching, and switching stances.
Unless we are directly quoting a source, I see no need to use two consecutive citations from the same source.  For example, the below passage in the article is where two consecutive citations for the same source exist (Source 12 in the article).
After completing development of the Game Boy Color version of the video game Spider-Man, developer Vicarious Visions wanted to move on to the Game Boy Advance, avoiding common projects for the platform like Super Nintendo ports and Mode 7 racing games. The idea of a Tony Hawk game came up during brainstorming, which was considered both a fun and high risk idea, due in part to it being an important brand to publisher Activision. Development of this version of Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 began in August 2000, Vicarious Visions having received an early development kit for the platform.
The phrase "skate punk-like artists" is a direct quote from the source.  I would place a citation at the end of the sentence that has that direct quote.  The same holds true with the sentence that has "technically impressive" and the sentence that has "surprisingly good", as they are direct quotes.  Another user informed me that I should follow this practice when he was reviewing my GANs.
Per MOS:EDITORIAL, "only" is a word to watch out for.  I would change The team intended to use the source code Neversoft used, only for it to turn out that it was programmed in C++, while the development kit's documentation said they could only use C. to The team intended to use the source code Neversoft used, but the code was programmed in C++, and the development kit's documentation said they must use C.
Overall, I think the work you did is solid for an FAC.  The good article will need some polishing and revision, as I noted above, so it can become a featured article.
Z. Patterson (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for this thorough review. I will implement the changes you suggested ASAP Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)


#### Octave
Just a few comments on referencing. The sources generally seem very good, so just some nitpicks:

Archive links are used inconsistently
Fixed. I hadn't gotten around to this until now, as the archive tool has been giving me guff on this page before.
Suggest standardising reference titles to sentence or title case
Inconsistent publisher linking
I actually only use publisher for magazine sources; in my experience, website publishers rarely get mentioned in video game articles.
I was meaning the Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences or British Academy Film Awards, etc.. These should be linked as well for consistency
Ah, sure, I'll make sure that's done
MOS:CONFORM: game names should be in italics
What games are not italicized?
All of them. Just like in the prose, works should be italicised in reference titles.
Wait, really?? [1] Damn, that's crazy, I've literally never known that in my 20-odd years on Wikipedia. Granted, I haven't led an FA since the 2000s.
Great work overall. UpTheOctave! • 8va? 00:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)


#### Vacant0
This article is in great shape and I'd be happy to review it when you take it to FAC. The only criticism that I have is that the lede is a bit to long for an article this short. That's it. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vacant0: How does the new lead look? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Looks better now. It's less bulky. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 28 October 2025 (UTC)