User:Gurdas Singh atwal/sandbox
RANGRETA SIKH AND MAJBHI SIKHS , HINDU RANGHAR RAJPUTS ORIGIN AND HISTORY , WARRIORS / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is on the topic mazhabi Sikh community in which their is rangreta sikh[1] category in sikhism.[1] This page tells about the brief history of the rangreta sikhs and Hindu Ranghar Rajputs and their long journey since ancient time to modern period. And how they got this name and how they join Sikhism. This page also tells about their warriors and their contribution in Sikhism. Background origin history warriors and their contribution in the society and Sikhism. This page tells about that how they where mistreated and misguided from their ancient history and exploited as workers and sweepers in the Indian society. The need arises because the rangreta sikhs in sikhism are now converting to other religions. Due to lack of education and knowledge they themselves getting exploited in the society. So this page shows their brief history and their contribution in the society and Sikhism.
Submission rejected on 19 November 2023 by Voorts (talk). This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Rejected by Voorts 6 months ago. Last edited by Citation bot 10 days ago. |
Submission declined on 19 November 2023 by DoubleGrazing (talk). Resubmitted without any improvement. Please do not do that, or this may be rejected outright. Authors are meant to work with the review process, not just keep resubmitting tendentiously. |
Submission declined on 19 November 2023 by DoubleGrazing (talk). Thank you for the effort that has gone into creating this draft, but unfortunately this is simply not ready for publication in its present state.
Firstly, I cannot even tell what the topic is, or if there are more than one. Secondly, while inline citations are not strictly required for articles in non-BLP topic areas, they are very strongly recommended. As it stands, I've no idea where any individual piece of information is coming from, making it virtually impossible to verify any of this, and similarly I've no idea how much of this remains unsupported or possible original research or synthesis. Thirdly, this breaks just about every rule in the Manual of style in terms of section structure, lead section, layout, capitalisation, formatting, and much more besides. I'm aware that formatting etc. issues can be rectified post-publication, but I for one will not be accepting this into the encyclopaedia. If the author is not familiar with Wikipedia article creation – and I fully appreciate that not everyone can be – they may wish to seek advice and/or collaboration from some of the Wikiprojects, eg. those listed in the draft talk page. |
Submission declined on 18 November 2023 by WikiOriginal-9 (talk). This is terribly formatted. Please look at other articles and see how they are formatted. |
- Comment: I am rejecting this draft because you have repeatedly resubmitted the draft without doing what the other reviewers have asked you to do. In particular, you need to review Wikipedia's style guidelines. Please take a look at the Manual of Style, especially the section on layout of articles. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:32, 19 November 2023 (UTC)