Food for thought.
There are times when questions come along which demonstrate a student's query, and with that comes the student's ill fated attempt to pose an "on topic" question without much experience. As such many such proactive, inquisitive, poignant and, in my view, very worthy questions end up [on hold] by the strict rules of Code Review.
Thus we end up with a constant stream of ignored content, not due to blatant disregard of site policy, but rather due to the inexperienced phrasing of a legitimate attempt for a code review. Legitimate attempt to learn.
Code Review is orders of magnitude smaller a place of learning than Stack Overflow. Where we could really be on par. Do we teach, want to teach, or are we here for exercise?
Who do we serve?
All here that have experience writing code know well that Code Review is not where a professional would seek review, nor would one expect an experienced professional coder to use Code Review for anything but a place to exercise. What is this place about?
I suggest we be a lot more pliable in regard to questions. That review includes an assessment of how a code related question is asked, with particular attention to the student's conceptual difficulties.
I suggest that a bad question can be corrected by good answers, that reviews not only address the code, but the methods, misconceptions, inexperience involved in asking for review.
I dare propose that good review could serve more than the few that want to exercise their "in the know". That good review is serving the many, many we seldom see learn how to ask to for review.
After all (RULE ONE OF LEARNING) there is no such thing as a bad question?