Talk:Royal Academy of History

[Untitled]
Apparently this articles is being showered by Publico readers and propaganda rather than on accurate statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chesterton84 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about what your concerns are with Publico as a source? Looking at your edits, you appear to have exlusively been removing items sourced to that publication. Other than your own statements, what evidence is there to say that Publico is not a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Article has very uneven coverage
I don't know the ins and outs of this institution and whether the criticism is valid, but this article has very uneven coverage. It has one unsourced section, one section with a list of members, a very short one sentence lead, no holistic coverage of the organisation as a whole, and few paragraphs of specific allegations of sexism/racism (which may or may not be merited) Bumbubookworm (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)