As best I could determine, not only where the comments by Hopkins missing from the sources, but Hopkins was missing from the sources. Evidence from search engines suggests it used to be in the BBC source (which shows evidence of having been diddled, as the title I found at that url was different from the one cited by the reporter). The info appears to be widely available, just not in the current versions of the particular sources. A not-ready over the sourcing problem seems out of step with the very straightforward situation; recalling the general principle that if there's only one way to fix it, there's no moral difference between the reviewer fixing it or requiring someone else to do so, I cautiously added a source for the quote.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
As best I could determine, not only where the comments by Hopkins missing from the sources, but Hopkins was missing from the sources. Evidence from search engines suggests it used to be in the BBC source (which shows evidence of having been diddled, as the title I found at that url was different from the one cited by the reporter). The info appears to be widely available, just not in the current versions of the particular sources. A not-ready over the sourcing problem seems out of step with the very straightforward situation; recalling the general principle that if there's only one way to fix it, there's no moral difference between the reviewer fixing it or requiring someone else to do so, I cautiously added a source for the quote.
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
