Talk:1874 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: 12george1 (talk · contribs) 05:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: SnowyRiver28 (talk · contribs) 12:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	...of storms in 1874 but did recommend the removal of the season's first and fifth systems. Chenoweth. The study argued for significant.... Is the inclusion of 'Chenoweth' a typo in the middle of these sentences? About $100,000 in damage to rice crops occurred in Should today's equivalent of the cost of the damage be added here (and to the infobox too)? Same goes for other cost figures in the article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Source spot check passed Majority of sources are reliable government or weather journal publications
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvio detected
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	All issues fixed and article ready to be listed.

Discussion

Starting GA review. SnowyRiver28 (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Review Completed @12george1: Great work! A couple of notes:

• This is more of a question, but in the first lead paragraph I noticed you mentioned seven tropical cyclones developed, and the article uses hurricane and cyclone interchangeably. Is this standard practice for these types of articles? While I have a rapidly developing interest here I'm not overly knowledgeable about extreme weather and how things are referred to so it would be great if you could clear this up :)
• Copyedit completed, you can check out my edit here.
• This article seems to depend on the Chenoweth study seems to be used extensively to support the claims in the article, though given the year (1874) and the reliability of the Chenoweth source, I don't think this is a major issue for this article.

I think this article meets GA criteria and is ready to be passed, pending the notes in the table above. I'll put this on hold so you can get it fixed up, please let me know if you have any questions or comments!SnowyRiver28 (talk) 04:51, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

• @SnowyRiver28:, I fixed the first bulleted point at 1a. For the second one, I added inflation templates except at the infobox, which isn't capable of using those. As for your inquiry about tropical cyclones, that is a term that encompasses tropical depressions, tropical storms, hurricanes, and words used in other parts of the world like typhoon.--12george1 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

  No worries, thanks for clearing that up! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.