# Talk:Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150201152206/http://1-up-studio.jp/works.html to http://1-up-studio.jp/works.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141010053218/http://www.gonintendo.com:80/s/238996-noa-pr-info-on-smash-wii-u-launching-nov-21st-amiibo-and-captain-toad-launching-dec-5th to http://www.gonintendo.com/s/238996-noa-pr-info-on-smash-wii-u-launching-nov-21st-amiibo-and-captain-toad-launching-dec-5th
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
How do I set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyone except less than 502 people (talk • contribs) 03:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC) 

Captain Toad isn’t playable in any Episode 2 level Tttttoad (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 16:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

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

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
Lead

I feel as though the co-op multiplayer bit could be cut from the lead, as well as the amiibo support, paid DLC, and levels themed after Odyssey.
Removed and merged paragraphs
"It is a spin-off of the Super Mario series which builds upon a series of levels from the 2013 video game Super Mario 3D World." I feel like this sentence is a little redundant to the development info below. I'd recommend cutting it and merging the second paragraph into the first.
Cut
Maybe cut the detail about plucking, challenges/collectibles, and why Captain Toad was chosen? I feel like that wouldn't be very important to a reader wanting to learn the basics about Captain Toad.
To argue the other side, I feel its a necessary general overview about the game's development section. While it's not necessary to understand the game, they're good details to know to understand the topic of Captain Toad, which includes both the game as well as its development and reception.
Looking at it, the claim that they are among the best-selling games on Switch and Wii U seems to be based on the criteria of what is considered best-selling for the purposes of the Wikipedia lists. I'd recommend cutting this claim from the lead and body unless a source can be identified that would call the versions "best sellers".
I changed it to read "highest-selling", which better shows its at the top of the lists but not necessarily a "best" seller.
Infobox

A significant portion of the staff in the infobox are not mentioned in the article at all, and in turn, their involvement is original research. Kenta, Yuka, the programmers, the artists, and the composers should be removed unless mentioned in the article with proper citation. On that note, is there no coverage of the game's art design or music?
Unfortunately not really. This game, like all Wii U releases, didn't really receive much development attention.
As for the infobox, no sources really cite the developers explicitly. To not include them because of this is ignoring details, though. In my FA, Paper Mario: Color Splash, I was instructed to cite the game's credits as citations for ones that did not have a secondary source. Do you recommend I do this?
The infobox says Nintendo EAD Tokyo, bur the article says Nintendo EAD. Further, the involvement of the other studios is not mentioned or cited.
Removed
Release info is unsourced for AU, and incorrect for JP - lists as November 13 in infobox, but November 14 elsewhere. Also, port release dates are generally not included in the infobox, so I'd recommend excising the 3DS and Switch release date.
Sorry for all of these mistakes. I should habitually start verifying the infobox is correct; I usually assume what's there is right.
As for gutting the port releases, I looked around and it seems these releases are usually included. If there's an MOS mention of this somewhere I'll remove it, but for now I'll cite them.
Genre is uncited and unmentioned in the article's body
sourced
Gameplay

The detail of Captain Toad having originated in 3D World isn't really relevant to Gameplay, can just as well be mentioned only in Development.
Yup
Toadette being playable is not mentioned in the citation attached to the text.
Cited
"Gold star" just say "star"
What the, how'd that slip past me?
The text seems to imply that the player controls both characters simultaneously.
Switched "and" to "or" to specify preference
The IGN source says 70-ish, not 70. Honestly, I'd drop it unless an exact level count can be cited to an RS.
Cut
Can you find a source specifying that the levels are completed linearly?
Cited a developer interview
Clarify that you restore a hitpoint upon collecting the Mushroom. Also, I'd recommend that the life system be mentioned.
Specified "when collected". Could you specify what you would like to see mentioned about the life system? It currently reads "The player has two hitpoints that can be lost by being hit by enemies. If the second hitpoint is lost, the player must restart the level. However, if all lives are lost, the game is over", which I feel just about sums it up.
The addition of bonus challenges and collectibles are mentioned in the design section, but not the gameplay section. Mentioning Green Stars, Stamps, and the Crystals would be good here. This could be added before the Toad amiibo text, since the Toad amiibo relates to bonus challenges.
specified
The source doesn't specify that the Captain Toad pixel hunt is time limited; I think you could cut it down and just say that it lets you hunt for a pixel Toad.
Done
The source specifies that the Pixel Toad does not require an amiibo in the Switch version, but it does not appear to cover the 3DS version.
Cut the 3ds mention
Is the co-op multiplayer between Toad and Toadette? If so, you should specify that.
Specified
Restructure the text about the Odyssey levels; I think it should discuss the levels first, and then explain that they can either be unlocked via amiibo or completing the game.
Restructured
(DLC) is featured twice; replace "downloadable content (DLC)" later in the article with DLC
Fixed
Plot

The article uses inconsistent terminology to refer to stars; the screenshot caption says "star," the gameplay section says "gold star," and the plot section says "Power Star" and "star" in the same paragraph. I'd recommend simply calling it a star in all sections.
Fixed
Might be worthwhile to pare down the chapter progression. It just feels a bit repetitive to go back and forth on who is kidnapped and in what chapter, could be better to say that the two swap placed due to Wingo kidnapping each of them across the story.
Shortened
Don't forget to mention that they beat Wingo.
Oops
Development

Consider sectioning the 3D World development info with something alluding to it being 3D World development.
Sure
I feel like some details are a little too much considering it's not development info for this game. For example, I'm unsure whether Link being considered is important for this game's development, but I would definitely argue that the elaboration as to why it was rejected is not. Consider breaking it down as much as you can without losing vital information and do a seealso template at the top of Development pointing to 3D World. I would personally discuss the origin of the diorama structure, a brief discussion of multiple characters being considered, why jumping was regarded as something the character shouldn't do, and why Captain Toad was chosen in the end.
"little diorama with Mario" is an inaccurate quote. If this is kept, it should be fixed.
Fixed
"When Miyamoto asked them to make a Captain Toad spinoff game after 3D World released they happily agreed to do so. Miyamoto requested them to make a full game because he was an avid fan of the Rubiks' Cube and had wanted to create a game that featured mechanics similar to it." I think these two sentences could be condensed and brought together. For example, "Miyamoto asked them to make it a full game due to his enjoyment of the Rubiks' Cube, wanting to create a game that featured mechanics similar to it, which the staff were happy to do so."
Design

The source attached to the 100 levels mention is not the one that has that info, be sure to attach the other NL interview to this part as well.
"Hayashida designed a level that would play on the title screen if the player goes idle, which displays an optical illusion where the artwork changes depending on which way the camera is aimed." A neat tidbit, but I don't think it's really needed.
The source affirming the consideration of cooperative multiplayer is not attached to the text adequately, making it a little confusing. Be sure to add a <ref name= to that portion of the text.
"negative character trait" might be OR, so I'd recommend nixing "so much that it almost becomes a negative character trait."
Announcement and release

Release date is listed as the 13th of November in the source.
Reception

The table is kind of unwieldy, to be honest. I'd recommend cutting out the 3DS and Switch columns, and just adding the MC scores on the Wii U's column in the aggregate section.
Shack News, VideoGamer.com, and the NS VentureBeat reviews are not in the article, just the template.
"...appreciated the removal of the timer" What timer? Either add that the timer was removed from 3D World to the Wii U version into the development section, or clarify it in Reception.
"pointed out the lack of a plot" might be better to say something like "although Polygon found the plot lacking," as I assume they didn't like the lacking plot.
The jumping/ladder comment by GR is a little weirdly worded; is the author saying that they wish that there were other ways to explore the lack of jumping besides ladders, or just discussing ladders as a consequence of the lack of jumping?
"With the lack of multiple objectives in 3D World, Fitch believed the game negatively leaned too much towards being a platformer than a puzzle game." The citation doesn't seem to support that this is negative; in fact, Fitch appears to clarify that this doesn't affect it for the worse, just reduces the emphasis on puzzles compared to 3D World.
"but Treasure Tracker served as a good choice for younger audiences" Looking into it, he doesn't seem to actually say that; merely discuss the puzzle design, and speculating that it was designed this way to appeal to younger players. I'd honestly recommend dropping this portion of the text.
Get the Famitsu source, especially since GoNintendo is not a reliable source.
"While the gimmick of Treasure Tracker was praised" - What is the gimmick?
"Nintendo Life's Thomas Whitehead expressed similar concerns." You could probably just cut this text and put the NL citation after "the camera received negative reception."
The first sentence of Other versions goes into too much detail explaining how the Odyssey levels worked. Since it's been explained already, no need to elaborate. It also seems the text might be a misunderstanding; in the article, the author seems to say that people who owned the Wii U version should be able to access them faster, rather than have to beat the Switch version to play those levels.
The cursor mention here should instead be mentioned in more detail in the release or gameplay section, and then it should be summarized less in this section.
The IGN 3DS review seems to contradict some of what the text says. For example, the article claims that the writer felt it was the best-looking 3DS game, but they said it was only among the best-looking games. Additionally, I'm not certain where in the source it says nothing was lost wrt the visuals; the author is clearly impressed by them, but their comment on the graphics seems to suggest it looks worse, and rather than not losing anything, the author just found it "miraculous" that it works.
The sales info should reasonably have Wii U sales covered together.
Nintendo Everything is not a reliable source. If you can't find an alternate source, you'll have to cut the NPD figure. Same with the top 100 link.
Images

I'd recommend specifying what the value of this specific screenshot (ie, showing the diorama-like style).
@Panini!: Finished the review. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Cukie Gherkin: - Hi! I have stepped in and resolve the remaining issues, incase Panini! is not available. I think this is one of the rare instances where the review table makes sense because the scores seem to be different across different versions. I cannot find find an alternative source for the sales of the Wii U version so I have removed them altogether. You have to replay the game or get the Amiibo figures to unlock the Odyssey stuff. OceanHok (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
My primary issue with the review table is the 3DS table adds only very little - two of the reviews are just the Switch version's reviews. In my opinion, the review table shouldn't need to be exhaustive coverage of the reviews. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cukie Gherkin: - I have implemented the change. OceanHok (talk) 13:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Aight, it's good now. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)