Talk:White Oak Pastures

Comments from Draft
I started this article in the Draft namespace. @Theroadislong commented: "reads in a very promotional manner is there a conflict of interest here?". Since there is no conflict of interest, and they have not responded to my questions, I am being bold and moving forward. Quoting the conversation here for the record:




 * @Theroadislong thanks for taking at look at the draft. Nope, there is no conflict of interest. I have no connection to White Oak Pastures, and am not being paid or asked to edit. My process for selecting references was using Google > News search, and reviewing the articles from the most credible sources. The information included in the draft reflects what I found in those articles. I did not find any articles from credible sources that I've excluded.
 * I am curious, for this draft and future ones, what specifically do you find "very promotional" about the draft? Also, is there a requirement to find critical references in order to publish a stub? I am committed to neutrality, but have not yet found such articles yet. Thanks Hold your horses (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Hold your horses (talk) 11:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks fine to me and well sourced. I don't see a problem. Anna (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)