# Talk:Disappearance of Don Lewis

The article states Don Lewis filed a restraining order in July 1997 which is incorrect.  Don Lewis filed his restraining order on June 12, 1997.  That is the date on the restraining order and the date on the case file at Hillsborough County Court Records.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mchaney (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC) 

Tiger King started the rumor about Don's van being a 1989 white Dodge Ram.  It was blue and silver and I don't recall the make or model.  My parents bought me the white Dodge Ram van in 1998, new, after his old van caught fire and left me stranded.  
More importantly, I have Don's IRS info from the Social Security office and the biggest year he ever had financially was in 1981 when he made $18,550.00 He only owned a house and the lot his used cars were on in a bad part of town.  He wasn't a millionaire when I met him.  We built the real estate business together from 1984 forward starting with an investment of $2000.00. I'm happy to copy you with the info from the SS office. My email is cat@bigcatrescue.org  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.57.39 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Disappearance of Don Lewis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ex Parte (talk · contribs) 20:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


### Opening statement
Hi, I've begun the process of examining this article.  I'm satisfied that this article survives initial inspection under WP:GAFAIL based on the following:

The article is clearly not a long way from meeting any of the six good article criteria.  If the article isn't already there (and my full review might very well reveal that it is), it's certainly close.
The article does not contain any copyright violations.  I've conducted a copyvio check and found nothing warranting further examination.
The article is not in need of any cleanup banners.
There is not any edit-warring taking place on this article.
There has been no prior GA review which presents any issues which have been left unresolved.
WP:GAFAIL preliminary review:  Pass
Accordingly, I'll begin the process of a complete GA review soon.  I suspect, based on my initial inspection, that I'll have a few suggestions for improvement, but on the whole I'm convinced that this article will pass GA review rather quickly.  I look forward to working with you!


### Full review
#### GA 2(d) issue
@Nice4What: I'm now beginning the process of conducting the full review.  Although I didn't see any need to highlight this in my preliminary review, one thing was flagged during my original copyvio check which I feel should be addressed.  There are stark similarities in both phrasing and organization between this article and this microblog post.  This is relevant to my analysis w/r/t GA criteria 2(d), which requires me to check for possible plagiarism.  For a variety of reasons, I do not believe that this article is plagiarized but I'd like to hear some comment from you on this matter.  If you could address the similarities I noted before I proceed any further, it'd be much appreciated.
You can review the results of the copyvio check by clicking here.  -- ExParte talk 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Update. Upon further examination, the blog post no longer presents any issue.  Disregard my prior inquiry.  I'll be moving forward with this shortly.  -- ExParte talk 05:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


#### Rubric assessment
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
I think there's still some room for tightening up some aspects of this article, in particular if you intend to pursue FA down the road, but as of right now, it meets the GA standard.  I'll include some suggestions for future improvement in my closing statements which you might consider looking into.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
I did have some red flags here in my copyvio check which indicated possible copyvio/plagiarism, but it quickly became clear that the blog post in question was not subject to any copyright claim and was maintained by a Wikipedia editor as a sort of staging ground for their edits.  As such, I dismissed the red flag.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
I think this article actually does a great job staying focused.  Some might fault it for being shorter than some GA-level entries (I actually think it's pretty much right in the sweet spot for GA size), but it tells the entire story as reported by reliable sources and it does so concisely.  Good job in this respect!
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
As I'll discuss in my closing statements, the article could do with a little more imagery given the available material regarding this subject, but this is adequate for GA purposes.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Closing statement
Congratulations on a successful GA nomination!  I have a few suggestions for improvement moving forward, none of which were necessary for attaining GA level:

Add more imagery.  My review lead me to a lot of potentially-related imagery which could help take this article to the next level.  Much of it also happens to be usable (under applicable copyright standards).  This could be something to look into.
Elaborate more on the Tiger King aspect of the story.  It's discernible from what is included in the article, but I think there's a lot of room for elaboration w/r/t that.  That seems like a pretty easy avenue for expansion and improvement.
Again, great work and congratulations! -- ExParte talk 17:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello

In a recent interview with 48 Hours, Trish Farr-Payne, the ex-wife of the handyman Kenny Farr who worked for Don Lewis and Carol Baskin, claims that Kenny once threatened her by saying "If you try to leave me again, I'm going to put you in the grinder like I did with Don."
Allegedly, Kenny Farr also brought home a large freezer with a padlock around the time of Lewis’s disappearance, that later disappeared from their porch about a week later after Don had disappeared, and already two weeks before Lewis disappeared, he allegedly also told her “Don’s gone, and I don’t want you talking about him.”.
Further, according to The Times, Trish told detectives already back in 2000 that she believed her husband had something to do with Lewis’s disappearance.
Links:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-tiger-king-mystery-48-hours-suspicion-new-clue/
https://www.crimeonline.com/2020/09/04/don-lewis-handymans-ex-wife-says-he-may-have-something-to-do-with-carole-baskins-missing-husband-documentary/

Should any of this be included into the article? Okama-San (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This should be mentioned on this page. 2A00:20:608E:45DD:446E:5ECC:E402:2356 (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Any reliable sources for that? --Jazzman (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)