Strange usage of quotations in Wikpedia article [closed]

My girlfriend and I were reading a Wikipedia page and were confused as to the usage of quotations in the following Wikipedia article: King Kong Bundy.

Specifically, towards the end, the article mentions that

Pallies was fond of cats and had "about 10" at the time of his death.

Wikipedia often quotes numbers in articles without quotations, instead, they will have a reference/citation (for example, citation 38 from above). Why in this case is there a need for both?

If the article claiming that Pallies had "about 10" cats is also referenced at the end of the statement, what is the grammatical reasoning for quoting "about 10"? Is there value to adding quotation marks to topics of estimation? Should I be adding quotation marks in my own writing for references of others' estimations? Help?

The article is quoting "about 10" from the referenced source. I take this to be because whoever added that to the Wikipedia article wanted to make it clear that the vagueness of the number wasn't their doing, but was already in the source.

The quote marks are being used because Wikipedia is making a direct quote. The citation (footnote 38) is a Courier Post article containing this sentence:

Pallies owned about 10 cats, according to Purrfect Angels Cat Rescue founder Suzanne Pomeroy whose agency is helping to find new homes for the animals.

If you were writing the Wikipedia article and chose to structure your sentence as:

Pallies was fond of cats and was estimated to have ten at the time of his death^[38]

... then no quote marks would be necessary, because you didn't use the actual words of the article; you'd just use the citation to show where you got the idea. On the other hand, if you wanted to quote even more, you could say

"Pallies owned about 10 cats" when he died, showing his lifelong fondness for the animals.