Talk:Archaeology Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Television / Episode coverage (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborate effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the episode coverage task force.

Article Review[edit]

This article was well written and provided an abundant amount of information on the episode overall. At first glance when you click on the article your not sure exactly what you will be reading about, unless you are familiar with Monty Python. Perhaps a more detailed title would help clarify this issue, however it is linked to the main page so it may not be necessary. Overall it was well written and gives a good overview/outline of the episode! Good job! Shelbeglidden (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

This article presesents a detailed examination and break down of the episode. It provides the reader with interesting information in terms of description, relevancy, and the use of archaeological references, along with detailed descriptions of the skits themselves. Overall it definitely works as an adequate and accurate wikipedia article. Some of the skit descriptions are less detailed than others however this may be due to their length...The only changes I made very to add a few links but otherwise found no real mistakes. It may be useful to provide a bit of background on the conception of the show or particular episode in general if such information can be found, however this is not necessary. Great job! GillMargS (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

We considered adding that information however it is found on the main site we linked the article to and did not want to be redundant. I might try to add a more substantial intro to help with this issue. Thanks!

Archaeological perspective[edit]

Do we have reliable sources for these sections? —Tamfang (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)