Talk:Crataegus monogyna

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wrong:

• Crataegus × macrocarpa (C. monogyna × C. laevigata; syn. C. × media)

Right:

• Crataegus × macrocarpa = C. monogyna × C. rhipidophylla
• Crataegus × media = C. laevigata × C. monogyna

--130.133.162.231 (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was discussed 11 January 2012 by a couple of editors, the French inscription that uses "sans doute" would be translated as "probably". This is modern French, where the phrase has acquired that meaning opposite to its literal meaning. To say "without doubt" one says "sans aucun doute". See for example here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

" by evidence-based medicine..." is jargon. If there is evidence, cite it.

The link to the Crataegus article where the citation is done has now been fixed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:

References

Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?

Scope

Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?

Layout and organization

Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?

Well written

Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?

Supporting materials

Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?

Understandable

Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.

Input anyone?

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crataegus monogyna. 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/20070224040329/http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/norfolk/nature%20reserves/map-links/hethel.htm to http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/norfolk/nature%20reserves/map-links/hethel.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202070858/http://www.archiemiles.co.uk/Hawthorn_Gallery.html to http://www.archiemiles.co.uk/Hawthorn_Gallery.html

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.

• 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) 05:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It says here it's impossible to verify the age of the tree in France, but this is incorrect. The age of any tree an be verified by core sampling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.138.90.39 (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it is clonal, or if the core has rotted out. Abductive (reasoning) 03:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English is not my mother tongue, so that I write it on the talk page first: In the English literature (especially pre-war and older) I have met the simple name thorn for the common hawthorn a lot of times (more than any other name mentioned in the article). Should I/somebody add it to the list of common names? --Mmh (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description and Distribution. Please check! I'm out of practice in recording references. Morton1945 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]