Talk:Royal Academy of History

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 18, 2018, April 18, 2019, and April 18, 2020.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spain

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]