This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Susan Crennan is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Please do not remove information from the Trivia section without good reason. Thank you. Queen's Counsel 03:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia sections are un-encyclopædic. Moreover, the source provided for the factoid is not reliable – it does not verify the claim. Although I don't believe it relevant, if a reliable source can be provided, I do not oppose properly integrating the information into the article (ie, in the text).--cj | talk 11:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New source added. If the source was the problem, you should have said so. I have updated it accordingly.Queen's Counsel 09:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
