Talk:QuackShot

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Good articleQuackShot has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2014Good article nomineeListed

Japanese title

[edit]

Is the japanese title really "Alive!" (アライブ, I think)? because in the japanese cover at Moby games (1, )
it reads アイラブ (airabu) ドナルドダック - グルジア王の秘宝 .

I think it translates to somemething like "I love Donald Duck - Georgia's King treasure",
could anyone with a better knowledge of japanese to confirm this?.
200.64.221.132 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)g_z[reply]

Did it last week, without reading this first.:) Should be right now, although the "I love Donald Duck" phrase appears only on the cover, not within the game.80.142.254.36 15:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Quackshot Cover Art.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Quackshot Cover Art.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Development

[edit]

Why is there no development section? Some information on what was going through the dev's heads is needed for the GA process's completeness criterion czar ♔ 02:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:QuackShot/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Taylor Trescott (talk · contribs) 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one up Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fact tag in the infobox needs addressing
    • Done. Assuming "Fact tag" meant the "[citation needed]" next to Sega AM8, I couldn't find any sources that indicated that they played any role in developing the game, so it was removed. Disney Interactive Studios remains the sole developer of the game.
  • Per WP:LEAD, this article should not have a three-paragraph lead as it only has 6503 characters
    • Done. Two paragraphs should be good.
  • For that matter, too much of the lead is not mentioned in the article's body, with "Much of the game is patterned after the first three Indiana Jones films." and the entire second paragraph not being mentioned anywhere else. Please rectify
    • Done. I replaced the sentence that referenced Indiana Jones with a mention of the Illusion series (which *is* mentioned later). The entire second paragraph was re-written and moved down to become the short development section - I hope that's okay, since (as far as I can tell) there's not a whole lot of sources that can be used to talk about the development of the game.
  • A screenshot of the title screen is not warranted per WP:NFCC#8
    • Done. I removed it.
  • A short development section should be added. Even if there's nothing out there, you can still briefly describe the studios who developed it.
    • Done. See my response to your 3rd bullet point above.
  • "the graphics are excellent, but the game is easy to complete." Needs a source
    • Done. I added the same ref that was used for MegaTech magazine's review score (the quote is from the magazine).
  • The reception section is just a summary of Buchanan and Butt's reviews. There should be more reviews added if you can find them
    • Done, kinda. I re-wrote the Reception section to focus on the game's praise first, followed by its criticisms. The second paragraph (the game's criticisms) is still mostly a summary of Buchanan and Butt's reviews (those are the most prolific reviews I could find), though I did find a short GameTrailers review that I included in there. I think it's definitely a better Reception section than before as far as flow is concerned.

Overall I think this a promising GA nominee and will give you a week to address these points. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to address your points. Please let me know what you think! — SolarStarSpire (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty

[edit]

Game has "segments unnecessarily difficult" or was "criticized for its lack of difficulty"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.249.152.240 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quackshot

[edit]

I named this game and then reviewed it for GamePro once I was fired from Sega. 2601:644:8D7E:6AE0:FD67:C561:AD87:19E3 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

[edit]

This article is outdated, and its analysis in the GAR section wasn't very thorough. It has the following problems: first, there are many primary sources in both the "Gameplay" and "Plot" sections. I know that these types of sources can be used sometimes, but it should be balanced and include much more professional sources. Second, in the "Development" section, there is no mention of how the game was created, nor the destra team, or how something came about; it only mentions its release and re-releases. In short, this article has too many problems to maintain its GA status, which is why I'm including it in the GAR. 191.156.226.218 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that the "Plot" section is unnecessarily long, as it explains in detail what happens in the game. And this shouldn't be the case, given that this is a platform game. The best thing in this case would be to summarize the plot better without having to go into obvious details. 191.156.52.115 (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I must clarify for any user that, while the problems can be solved, it will take a lot of work and many sources to save the article. The "Plot" section needs a summary; it's already too long. The "Development" section should include information about how the game was created, like the Castle of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse article on the Russian Wikipedia. I don't see the need to split the reviews into "Contemporary" and "Retrospective" sections; they should be combined for a more coherent reading. In any case, I'm republishing it on GAR because the article needs a lot of work. 2803:1800:1117:87CB:E021:A120:3DA6:83F5 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up with this: primary sources are not a concern for the GA criteria: if better sources are found, they should be replaced but the use of primary sources doesn't necessarily mean that the article no longer fulfils the criteria. As for the "Development" section: are there sources that could be used to expand this section? Z1720 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: First, regarding gameplay sources, I found one from VentureBeat and Sega-16 (although you can use sources from that era, such as Computer and Video Games, Sega Pro, and Console XS). As for development sources, I found the following: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (from Newspapers.com) [6] [7]. In addition to these two items, the "plot" section also needs to be cut down, as it's too long for a platformer. 181.33.182.54 (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]

QuackShot

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result pending

An IP has requested that a GAR be opened for this article. Relevant comments include:

"This article is outdated, and its analysis in the GAR section wasn't very thorough. It has the following problems: first, there are many primary sources in both the "Gameplay" and "Plot" sections. I know that these types of sources can be used sometimes, but it should be balanced and include much more professional sources. Second, in the "Development" section, there is no mention of how the game was created, nor the destra team, or how something came about; it only mentions its release and re-releases. In short, this article has too many problems to maintain its GA status, which is why I'm including it in the GAR."

"I'd also add that the "Plot" section is unnecessarily long, as it explains in detail what happens in the game. And this shouldn't be the case, given that this is a platform game. The best thing in this case would be to summarize the plot better without having to go into obvious details."

"I must clarify for any user that, while the problems can be solved, it will take a lot of work and many sources to save the article. The "Plot" section needs a summary; it's already too long. The "Development" section should include information about how the game was created, like the Castle of Illusion Starring Mickey Mouse article on the Russian Wikipedia. I don't see the need to split the reviews into "Contemporary" and "Retrospective" sections; they should be combined for a more coherent reading. In any case, I'm republishing it on GAR because the article needs a lot of work."

"...regarding gameplay sources, I found one from VentureBeat and Sega-16 (although you can use sources from that era, such as Computer and Video Games, Sega Pro, and Console XS). As for development sources, I found the following: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (from Newspapers.com) [13] [14]. In addition to these two items, the "plot" section also needs to be cut down, as it's too long for a platformer." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CooperCool23, I've noticed you've trimmed down the plot significantly. Would you be interested in saving this GA? You can get a fancy barnstar! Tarlby (t) (c) 18:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tarlyby i'd definitely be down for that! I'll try and get a start on the other stuff for the GAR throughout this week. COOPER COOL 23 user page 21:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]