Talk:United States: Coroner says former patient killed self and three hostages at California veterans center

Additional info on the shooter
I don't want to rely too heavily on the Press Democrat, but this March 10 article and this March 9 article derived from the same paper have more information on the shooter (and yet another number for how many residents there are at the whole center). This East Bay Times article also looks good, but is inaccessible with Adblock enabled. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Headline
Has it now been officially stated that he died by a self-inflicted gunshot wound? When I wrote this up, it was explicitly said to be unknown whose shot killed him. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going by the WSET source, which says "The only shots that were heard at the center happened at around 10:30 a.m." and since then the police were unable to contact the shooter. And a witness reported four shots. I don't know if the source updated their content or if you are referring to a different source. --SVTCobra 21:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia seems to have drawn the same conclusion, not that they are an authority. --SVTCobra 21:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw a lot of "We haven't been told yet", including one specific warning that the police had not said, and there was "an exchange of gunfire" with a deputy. (The one inference I drew was that that was a sheriff's deputy.) So I think it's still in the article text as our not knowing whose shot killed the gunman. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that in other sources. I changed title accordingly. I really wanted to get rid of the phrase "himself found dead". Sadly, the it looks like the ticking clock may claim this article as well. Cheers, --SVTCobra 08:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately I only learned about this one next day when I saw a copy of the Mercury News at a corner store, and I then had to work; I started the article as soon as possible in break time. Such is our life these days. I see reviewers have been struggling with things like snow storms and power cuts. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a bit rough. We haven't published an article in a long while. But returning to the shooting. I noticed, in addition to no one saying specifically Wong shot himself, it is also really vague if he shot all the three victims. Is it possible one or more was killed in the crossfire of the shootout? I was looking for follow-up articles to see if we could have a new focal event, and I saw articles saying investigators were being "unusually tight-lipped over the weekend". When the results of the investigation come out, perhaps there will be something newsworthy to revive this story. Cheers, --SVTCobra 15:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4389742 [Not ready]

 * Thanks for looking. Yes, lots of noncommittal statements, but the identity of the gunman was well established. I will look for follow-ups for a possible refocussing. Researching this the day after, I found very few sources still accessible to me recounted the events; they'd been largely replaced with bios of the victims. I wanted to identify all three victims with age and job title, and found I needed a second article to get the third age (I have an edit summary to that effect). I didn't see those pieces of info about the three victims in the sources I then tracked down on the events. If they're there, then one or both of the victim bio sources can be dropped. If there is later coverage, it may include those pieces of info. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Autopsy result
Parking this source here till I get home from work. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4390900 [Passed]

 * I think I would have tightened up the headline. Dropped "that", possibly changed "himself" to "self".  --Pi zero (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, my friend. I was actually angry at myself for forgetting. It was one of my first thoughts. I really wanted to shorten it, but then I forgot and published. Afterwards, I thought, it'd be messy to rename now and it's not like we don't have loads of really long titles. However, do you think we should rename? --SVTCobra 23:45, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking at it, I went ahead and shortened. Check the redirect protections for me if you would. Grrr ... I can't believe I forgot. BTW, after using the review tool, a page comes up with "make this a lead?" and I do not understand the instructions there. The times I have made something a lead, I did it manually because I don't know how to use that page. Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi folks. Thanks very much for getting to this and publishing it. No butchery; I tried to explain earlier in the article what the "campus" referred to and where in Calif. this all happened, but I agree, it was clunky. You put it back to explaining all that at the end, which was how I think I'd originally done it. However, I notice it's not on the front page yet. When you wake up, could one of you put it up there? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It is in the 'latest news' column but not at the left, this is sometimes intentional if other news are more relevant. Could also be human error. --Gryllida (talk) 05:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I see George Ho put it in the left-hand section, thanks for that. Now I should add the sister link to en.wikipedia, although that needs updating. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Um, right-hand, actually. --George Ho (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)