Talk:Archaeology Today

Archaeology Today was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 31, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Television: Episode coverage

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you 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.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Mount Allison University supported by Anthropology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Article Review

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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