| Submission declined on 24 December 2024 by Johannes Maximilian (talk). Please don't resubmit the draft without putting any effort into addressing the reviewers' concerns. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Once you save your changes using the "Publish changes" button below, you will be able to resubmit your draft for review by pressing the "Resubmit" button that will appear here. |  |
| Submission declined on 23 December 2024 by Johannes Maximilian (talk). This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by Johannes Maximilian 2 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 15 December 2024 by Bhairava7 (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Declined by Bhairava7 10 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 6 December 2024 by DoubleGrazing (talk). The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject. Declined by DoubleGrazing 19 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 6 December 2024 by Significa liberdade (talk). The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Declined by Significa liberdade 19 days ago. | |
| Submission declined on 30 October 2024 by Theroadislong (talk). This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia. Declined by Theroadislong 55 days ago. | |
Comment: I am totally unfamiliar with the subject, and frankly, I find your text very hard to understand. It seems to introduce a bunch of different very similar names for just one subject, and it makes it very hard to keep track of who is who. I save ourselves some time and focus on the name "Swami":"Swami Avimukteshwarand Saraswati (…) is the 55th and current Jagadguru Shankaracharya (…) He was the disciple of Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati and, after his death in September 2022, Swami Avimukteshwaranand was crowned as Shankaracharya of Joytirmath (…) Shri Swami Avimukteshwaranad Saraswati was born in Brahmanpur (…) When Swami Karpatri ji Maharaj was unwell, he came to Kashi with Ram Chaitanya, where he served Swami Karpatri ji till his last breath. While engaged in the service of Swami Karpatri Ji Maharaj, he got the darshan and company of Puri Peethadhishwar Swami Niranjan Dev Teerth and Sharda Dwarka Peethadhishwar Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati. He took Diksha from Swami Swaroopanand Saraswati and became his disciple, taking on the name Swami Avimukteshwarananda Saraswati."This is a fine selection of ten Swamis from the first three paragraphs, and I am almost out of recommended text colour (I hope you aren't affected by CVD). In addition to that, the text formatting is off (please refer to Help:Wikitext#Layout as well as H:FN). Your text should have proper headings, and no footnotes in places where they don't make sense (i.e., neither put footnotes before text, nor place it in any headings). Please do fellow readers a favour and also explain the context. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
