Talk:Time Team series 2

Learn more about this page

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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.

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.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Complete nonsense

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

". The first two days were spent in conflict with English Heritage, so no significant finds were made. " - re-view the series on YT and then put real facts in here. The Tockenham article says more, and there is the reference of Harding, P.A.; Lewis, C. (1997). "Archaeological Investigations at Tockenham, 1994". Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Magazine. 90: 26–41. which is online and tells you in detail how much of high significance was discovered! 47.71.37.1 (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

even worse

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Find: Roman road route rediscovered. " could not be farther from truth. again, watch the episode on YT. NOTHING was discovered, just speculation. Who wrote all those wrong summaries??? 47.71.37.1 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The main source, an "inofficial website" is not only an invalid reference, it is offline as well. The few archived pages have lot of names, but few if any actual information about the dig, and NO information about findings and conclusions. Totally worthless and no source for these (false) descriptions given in the article.

Add topic