Talk:Renae Lawrence

Untitled

Why say, "Lawrence was allegedly discovered" when she's been convicted? Can't one say, "Lawrence was discovered" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.0.58.18 (talk • contribs)

I've fixed that. It's a very recent event and her conviction is merely hours old. -- Longhair 05:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"The second delivery, scheduled for December 2004 was aborted when heroin suppliers failed to deliver [5]." The 'reference' for this statement is an opinion piece - a better reference is needed. Also the first reference listed under the reference section is incorrect.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Renae Lawrence/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thehistorian10 (talk · contribs) 15:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Not up to "Good Article" standards, in my view

I took a look at the article and don't think it qualifies to be rated as "good." It is certainly well written enough. My difficulty is that it appears that some of the citations do not support the text, so I have some belief that the article is not sufficiently reliable. For example, the text surrounding footnote 9 "graphic footage of the arrests and subsequent police questioning" is not supported by the footnote. Likewise, the claim that Lawrence was "cooperative" with the police is not supported by footnote 37, which simply says that Lawrence and her lawyers "showed deference to the system" likely as part of a strategy for sympathy. Cooperation typically means that an individual turns state's evidence against the coconspirators, but Lawrence went to trial and according to other sources, the court of appeals said that her behavior while on trial was no different from some other defendants. Likewise, in the "trial" section, it states that Chan alleged that Lawrence was the ringleader, but this can't be the case because Chan did not testify. I have not looked at every source of the article, but my sampling suggests that the article is not reliable.

Additionally, it would be useful to note somewhere that Lawrence's claim of duress was incomplete as a matter of law. Duress only works where there is no way out of avoiding the duress, but here there were multiple trips, and the use of aliases. Lawrence could have avoided the duress by reporting the conduct to the police. So as a matter of law in most jurisdictions, a duress claim would not have worked. Some other issues, from my view, make be think that the article is not quite as balanced as it could be.

Lastly, I would note that requests for GA status for articles about the coconspirators was rejected, and the articles share much of the same text regarding the trials.

Wiki33139 (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Wiki33139. I believe the articles on the other co-conspirators were rejected on the basis that Wikipedia does not consider an article notable if it is about people notable for only one event. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with above. Combine that with the fact that many of the same issues in this article appear in the other failed ones tells me there's enough to be fixed, so for now the article fails. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Renae Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005090934/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/107127/lawrence-warned-about-bali-nines-chan to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/107127/lawrence-warned-about-bali-nines-Chan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)