By way of example, I have just come across this question: When you are at school as having been "bumped to the homepage by Community" with the comment "This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed."
In what way should we "review" it: ideally to prevent it being bumped periodically for the indefinite future?
I should point out that I have read the question & answer for The Community bump- what are the rules, and are these rules proper? and have noted that certain actions, e.g. "up-voting or down-voting the zero-scored, sole answer would stop it from getting bumped", but also that "up-voting and down-voting ... should be based on an appropriate assessment of the answer."
In my current example, a comment shows that the original questioner was clearly happy with the answer - but they did not formally 'accept' or up-vote it. I am also not inclined to up-vote (or down-vote) the answer. Neither am I inclined to vote to close the question: in fact I propose to edit the question for 'tidiness' & clarity. I note, from the Meta question linked above, that I could "request to have [the question] locked", but what are the grounds for locking a question, and how would I do that if appropriate?
The linked Meta question also states that "What's relevant ... is whether the question is on-topic and of a sufficiently high quality."
My example question is clearly "on topic" (although probably more appropriate for ELL) and the answer is brief and too the point -- but certainly not "high quality". I could propose it for closure on the grounds of lack of research, or that it belongs on ELL - but that would, of course, require others to agree. Or should I just leave the question 'as-is' for periodic auto-bumping ad infinitum? The problem with that is, of course, that the number of periodically auto-bumped questions will also grow ad infinitum, with the increasing risk of everyone ignoring them!