Talk:Toscana (film)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles

Denmark Low‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is more like a piece of fluff than its judgment of the film is

The 'reviewer(s?)' repeat the same negative points of view, showing more than a hint of bias.

There is no plot summary.

If this is the standard of Wikipedia articles they deserve a collective 1 star rating.

If the review were quite a lot funnier it would almost constitute a joke. 2.100.81.59 (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may write the plot summary yourself—that's the point of Wikipedia. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 06:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to doubt that the Danish reviewers only want this film to do well. They just didn't like it that much. And there's nothing wrong in that being reflected in this article. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 10:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A balance of views might better suit Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1541:B21F:1:2:F641:C6B (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What balance of views should be introduced when basically all the critics say the same things? Only one very short review was slightly positive, and that's written about in the "Critical response" section. —Biscuit-in-Chief :-) ^{(/tɔːk/ – /ˈkɒntɹɪbs/)} 20:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you forgot to cite your sources for 'basically all" and "only one". Otherwise your comment is merely unsubstantiated opinion.