# Talk:Nebulous

Much improvement has been done to this article and except for a few minor fixes I altered, there is no reason for this article not to be granted GA status. Congrats and good work!--十八 06:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Most people searching for the term nebulous are looking for the astronomy or dictionary meaning. Daniel.Cardenas 17:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, a dictionary definition has no place in Wikipedia (that's what Wiktionary is for), and as far as I'm aware, the only astronomical use of "nebulous" is an occasional use in place of the word "nebular" meaning "like a nebula". As both would be mere dictionary definitions, there could be no article based on them, and therefore there is no possible article that this page conflicts with. Laïka 18:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. Although the article is generally good, well maintained and (nice to see!) well referenced, I have found a couple of issues that may need to be addressed: 

Lead: this needs expanding (per the guidance on WP:LEAD); it should be a summary of, rather than an introduction to, the article. For example, there is currently no mention of the Reception section.
Prose: I have conducted a light copyedit to (hopefully!) tighten up the prose and make it less 'in-universe', but I thought there was one point that could do with further clarification: The length of Thursday is "unknown". Does this mean that the characters don't know how long it is, or just that it hasn't been revealed to the audience?
Coverage: it would be helpful to expand the cast listing slightly, to briefly state what role each character has in the show. Some of these are already given (eg "Matt Wolf — Nebulous's father"), but others are meaningless to someone who is unfamiliar with the show (eg "Graham Duff — Rory Lawson"
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 12:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


### GA sweep (pass)
That was fast work! You've addressed all the above issues, and I'm now happy that this article should retain it's GA status. I've therefore passed this reassessment and updated the AH at the top of the page to reflect this review. Great job, and thank you for your work! 
For future development, a section on the concepts behind the creation of the show would make an interesting addition - if, of course, this information exists can be tracked down and sourced! All the best, EyeSerenetalk 17:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The use of K.E.N.T. throughout seems mistaken to me. Throughout the series, it's pronounced as "Kent" -- that's the whole point -- not as the individual letters, so imo it should be written as KENT without the dots. Comments? Quaestor23 (talk) 09:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely the designation “cult” requires that the programme has a visible fan presence and a dedicated following? It seems that it is being used here simply because it is made by, and stars, people who might have a presence in *other* cult shows, and indeed the show parodies several of this others; however I am not aware of, nor does the article inform me of, who the fanatical followers are, if they constitute a significant feature of the life of the programme, and what their investment is in the series which would lead to it being described as “cult”? Jock123 (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nebulous. 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/20061106220132/http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/news/cult/2005/01/06/16362.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/news/cult/2005/01/06/16362.shtml
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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 06:40, 15 February 2018 (UTC)