If I want to impress someone, I try to avoid citations from Wikipedia. Folks have empirical facts on the ground. I could care less for the terms used used to explain them, whether it's hypothesis or law. Its ability to predict future events is all that counts, IMHO. Scientific law is a hypothesis that's been tried and true without fail within experimental error.
There's Mendel's Law of Independent Assortment
They found that now they have exceptions to Mendelian genetics.
Global variation in copy number in the human genome
Mendelian genetics works most of the time, just like Newtonian mechanics. Good night
I've found Wikipedia to be very reliable on topics unrelated to political disputes. The difference between scientific laws and theories isn't so far as I know. But be that as it may,
SCIENTIFIC LAWS and THEORIES has a very good discussion and quotes many sources.
BTW, I spoke too hastily about your source. It's not wrong, just off point. They're focusing on the similarities between theory and law, not the differences. So yes, both make predictions and can be invalidated by contrary findings.