Technically, in para 2, yes I'm direct quoting a source, BUT it's a physical description of her clothing.....so........whaddya gonna do? --Bddpaux (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say some other stuff might have been usefully included, but, well, maybe. The stuff about the alleged argument and the car without keys might be useful perspective (reflects on the keys in the hoodie and the mother's comment about calling), but really, it's hard to pin anything down on this story. The two sources don't even have mutually consistent descriptions of the woman. It's a mess of confusion and unconfirmed rumors. And then the police say the word is about he confessed and it isn't true — which is poorly worded; they should have at least started by saying "it isn't true that...", or better yet they should have just said "he hasn't confessed to anything" and not promoted the rumor at all).
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.
I was going to say some other stuff might have been usefully included, but, well, maybe. The stuff about the alleged argument and the car without keys might be useful perspective (reflects on the keys in the hoodie and the mother's comment about calling), but really, it's hard to pin anything down on this story. The two sources don't even have mutually consistent descriptions of the woman. It's a mess of confusion and unconfirmed rumors. And then the police say the word is about he confessed and it isn't true — which is poorly worded; they should have at least started by saying "it isn't true that...", or better yet they should have just said "he hasn't confessed to anything" and not promoted the rumor at all).
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.
