Talk:Aerial archaeology

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Poor choice of photographs

The aerial photos (APs) chosen to illustrate aerial archaeology aren't really representative, in my opinion. Okay, the first one shows an amphitheatre, giving us its ground plan - but this is an already excavated feature, so already known to archaeology. The great thing about aerial archaeology is its use as a tool for discovering sites and identifying previously obscure features not readily apparent from ground level. The second shot merely shows an aerial view of a town - albeit an old, historic town. Again, not representative of what aerial archaeology can show most usefully. How about some photos of earthworks, lynchets, soilmarks, cropmarks etc - the common forms of archaeological features that APs are good at showing? 86.148.48.248 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this comment is ten years old, but I had the same thought when visiting this article. I added several new images and deleted the one of the amphitheater. Netherzone (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements are needed

Needs a primary reference, orginal source unknown, needs headings and improved format, and improved photos. What specific professional or avocational groups use this technigue?? I done some work and cleanup, but much more is needed to improve this article. Cheers.LanceBarber (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

There definitely needs to be a section on the history of AA. See, e.g., http://www.historic-cornwall.org.uk/flyingpast/images/PDF_downloads/aerial%20photos%20and%20archaeology/History%20of%20Aerial%20Archaeology.pdf or M. Barber's book, A History of Aerial Photography and Archaeology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.191.77 (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Aerial archaeology. 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:

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) 23:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]