The key statement of the original question (v1) is
Can you show me a problem and solved with basic characteristics of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods. like
Problem : ........................
Solution with Newtonian : ....................
Solution with Lagrangian : ........................
Solution with Hamiltonian : ......................
There are several reasons I think this is a bad question:
Any time someone says effectively "answer the question in this format," it's a strong (though not definite) indicator of an asker who wants to be spoon-fed, and is not going to put in the effort to understand a reasonable answer. This is supported by the lack of any reference to an attempt by the OP to answer the question themselves, or even to look up a suitable problem and solutions in a textbook or problem book. So I think it's very clear that the OP has not put in anywhere close to sufficient effort to craft a good question for this site. As far as I'm concerned, this warrants a downvote, and one could argue also closure under the homework-like reason (though that could be a bit of a stretch). If we were to have an "insufficient effort" close reason then this would certainly qualify.
This question, and in particular the way in which the question is asked, suggests it's being asked by someone who has not studied Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. And in fact the poster says as much earlier in the question. That means they won't have the expertise required to make sense of the kind of answer we'd give them. What they need for this particular misunderstanding is a textbook or a course in classical mechanics, not a question on this site, and thus any useful answer to their question is likely to be very long (in an attempt to incorporate much of the material that a class would cover). That's part of the description of the "too broad" close reason.
When I say this is a site for expert-level questions, this is the kind of thing I mean to exclude, and thus for this reason as well I'm inclined to downvote the question.
Beyond that, the question is very much non-specific. It doesn't give us any indication of what the asker is really confused about, and in particular it doesn't address any sort of conceptual misunderstanding. Without that information, it will be a shot in the dark for us to provide a problem and solutions that are actually helpful. This qualifies it to be closed as "unclear what you're asking" in my opinion.
And finally, there's an endless list of possible answers, which is one of the criteria mentioned explicitly in the description for the "too broad" close reason. Now, of course any question can have a large number of possible answers, if you go by word-for-word comparison, but usually there is something in the question that will cause all possible correct answers to basically be saying the same thing. In this case, if the OP had identified some aspect of the various formalisms that they were confused about (as I mentioned in the previous bullet point), that would give the answers something to address and perhaps excuse the question from being too broad, but in this revision there is nothing of the sort.
As for the rephrased version (v3): the key statement is
Can you use an example to outline the basic characteristics (and key differences) of Newtonian, Lagrangian and Hamiltonian methods in their approach to classical mechanics problems?
This is certainly an improvement over v1, as it addresses the formatting issue from the first bullet point above, and partially the third, in the sense that it starts to give a clue as to why the asker is confused. But the second and fourth, and part of the third, still stand. In particular, the question is still being asked by someone who is not prepared to receive a reasonable answer, and there's still nothing sufficiently specific identifying a particular concept that confuses the OP. Any edit we could make to remedy that would involve a significant amount of guessing on the editors' part as to what the OP really wanted to know. So I don't think it's possible to fix this question through editing without intervention by the OP, and thus I think this should remain on hold unless and until the OP does edit it in a way that addresses these issues.