Talk:Doc (film)

	Film portal 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
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Westerns: Film Stub‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Westerns, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Western genre 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.WesternsWikipedia:WikiProject WesternsTemplate:WikiProject WesternsWesterns articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Film task force.

Removal of requests for changes

At one point this article was tagged for: 1) Copy edit, 2) No references, and 3) General improvement. The last sentence in Historical Errors, and perhaps by extension the whole paragraph was tagged with "Citation Needed".[1] Except the tag requesting citations, requests for changes are gone. It's true the informal language is cleaned up, but there are still basic issues, particularly with the "Historical errors" section. There's original research, implying that the film is repeating "errors" of a previous film. There's an assumption that the film intended to represent fact to one degree, and that's it's encyclopedic to note where it did not meet the (unstated, unreferenced) objective. None of that is really relevant to the movie. The place for comparative history is in the Wiki article about the O.K. Corral with reputable sources. Not here, original fan commentary. I removed the section. The rest of the article still needs work. I replace the tags. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are still issues, but these are mainly the lack of sources or inline citations. The 'expansion'-tag really does not add anything here: the main sections for a movie stub/start-class article are there, so of course expansion is welcom, I don't think the template is needed. Same for CE: the article reads just fine, with proper int links, sections and all. Removing these 2 templates. Pim Rijkee (talk) 18:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

racial slur

chinaman could probably be changed 2601:188:C780:DB60:A133:C2D4:E136:DAF3 (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]