Talk:Bromus tectorum

message: Removed this as it is ridiculous: "It grows rapidly and may produce dry matter at a rate of 2.9 g/mm²/day" (that's the same as 2.9 tonnes per square metre per day). Somewhere there's a few orders of magnitude gone out! - MPF 23:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why does cheatgrass redirect to this particular variety of Bromus? Why doesn't it redirect to Bromus instead?Ryoga-2003 (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  rediret 

message: The article says that cheatgrass was first found in the United States in New York and Pennsylvania in 1861; but if cheatgrass is the same thing as cheat, the weed was known to Virginian wheat-growers much earlier.  See, e.g., Farmer's Register, Vol. III (1836), pp. 555-56, for two contributions to the debate as to whether "cheat" were a diseased variety of wheat or a different plant altogether.  (Both contributors contend that it is the former.  Editor Edmund Ruffin decorously disagrees.)  Maybe some more knowledgeable person than I can track that down and, if cheat and cheatgrass turn out to be the same plant, amend the article accordingly.  J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 19:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Appearance in the U.S.? 

message: To add to article: why it's called "cheat" grass. 173.89.236.187 (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bromus tectorum. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6VqJ46atN?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bsbi.org.uk%2FBSBIList2007.xls to http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923103823/http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/exoticab/scotbrot.htm to http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/plants/exoticab/scotbrot.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bromus tectorum. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090412054533/http://www.tncfire.org/crosscutting_fandi.htm to http://www.tncfire.org/crosscutting_fandi.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Content
•	The material feels disjointed, as if built slowly piece by piece without any flow. Can be better focused.
•	   Feels disjointed and hard to read
•	The topic is only partially covered. There is important information missing. Treatment methods are not being discussed and it is mentioned that that it has altered the fire regime but not how B. tectorum has altered it. The section on B. 
tectorum and climate change can be improved and clarified.
•	While they do have primary sources they are before 2010 and the majority of the research started in 2010 and then really picked up in 2015. The sources need to be updated to keep the article up to date
•	I cannot tell what is referenced or not because they only cite at the end of paragraphs
•	In some parts it is referred to by its scientific names, some by drooping brome, and some by cheatgrass. This inconstancy compounds the lack of flow that makes it feel like this entry was created in bits and pieces. In the description section there is incorrect information (ie B. tectorum is not a bunch grass). The lead section is short and does not provide a clear overview. There should also be some more background on B. tectorum. 
Quality
•	There is no clear introduction 
•	No because it is not clear, and very short
•	There are headings and subheadings but there use and organization is not consistent
•	 Several sections important to understanding the biology and ecology are missing
•	The pictures are okay. Two essentially show the same thing though, and an overview of how it makes the area that has been invaded look would be nice. There are no appendices or footnotes
•	The article is neutral 
•	 Yes, but weakly
•	Yes, the references are either primary sources, university sites, or government sites
Goszkaar (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class critique 

message: The article is now primarily not about the grass species Bromus tectorum but about its status as a weed in the US. The balance is not appropriate for an international encyclopedia. I guess the "US weed" material could be split off into a separate article. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distorted article