Standardized residuals vs fitted values: OLS assumptions satisfied? 
Based on only the above plot, what comments would you make about whether the OLS assumptions are satisfied? 
In particular homoskedasticity, normality.
I just want to know if I'm right. It seems to me that:


*

*There seems to be some heteroskedasticity present, since the variance seems to increase with higher fitted values.

*There are quite a few large outliers, e.g. those around fitted value 20. So the kurtosis might be higher than that of a normal distribution

*Overall the violation of these assumptions does not seem to be extreme.


Is that correct? 
And are there any other specific observations that can be made which I missed?
Finally, is it correct that the below plot confirms that there is indeed heteroskedasticity, or what do you make of it?

 A: In the first plot we can see 
i) some nonlinearity in the local mean of the residuals (you don't really need the blue curve to tell you that - compare the trend in the left half with the trend in the right half and you can see it changes from downsloping to nearly flat even without the smooth). Aside from saying it's some kind of smooth approximation of the local movement in the mean, I can't interpret the blue curve precisely because you didn't say how it was calculated. It might have been created in any of several ways -- it's up to you to tell us what you did, not the other way around.
ii) clear heteroskedasticity, because the spread increases as we move from low fitted values to high ones.
iii) clear skewness in the conditional distribution of the residuals. Consider each of the green "slices" below (A, B, C and D):

Take slice "A" for example. The blue line marks (approximately) the mean:
 
We can see there's much more of a tail out to the right in slice A. We see the same in slices B, C and D ... 
