![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Let's get working on this article. It definitely needs a lot of work. Experts in literature lend me your hands. I got most of this. I'm reserching it right now.-- Robert Waalk ( talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
" Pogledaj dom svoj, anđele" ( Serbian for Look Homeward, Angel) is one of Riblja Čorba signature songs, released on their 1985 album Istina
I'm removing this because it seems to trivial, and I think it probably is refering to the poem, or neither, as I'm pretty sure that Look Homeward, Angel, has never been translated into any other languages, and even more certain it's never been on the shelfs in Serbia.-- Robert Waalk ( talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also removing this accordinly: * Petar, Janjatović (2007). YU ROCK enciklopedija 1960-2006. Beograd: Petar Janjatović.
ISBN
9788690531714..--
Robert Waalk (
talk)
21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
RobertLook Homeward Angel was was translated into German, and was a success there during the 1930s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismaelbobo ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Look Homeward, Angel was translated into Slovenian in 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.62.175 ( talk) 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the History section is ambiguous: "It is believed that a stone statue of an angel, found in a Hendersonville, North Carolina cemetery, looking to the east was part of the inspiration for this work. A highway marker located on Highway 64, or 6th Avenue West in Hendersonville, at an entrance to Oakdale Cemetery, contains this information." "It is believed" by whom? The highway marker?
If so, wouldn't it be better to say, "A highway marker located at an entrance to Oakdale Cemetery in Hendersonville, North Carolina, says that a stone statue of an angel looking to the east, found in the cemetery, was part of the inspiration for this work."? Altgeld ( talk) 18:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the plot summary to correct punctuation, spelling, and grammar, and to improve its clarity and readability. Although I did not change it, I wonder about the word "raging" in the first paragraph. Does it really add any information? Is a raging alcoholic a recognized type distinct from other alcoholics? Altgeld ( talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Using the word "raging" doesn't seem to add the severity detail you are looking for, as that seems to indicate violence, as in "violent alcoholic. What would be wrong with writing "severe alcoholic" ?
I would also like to mention that the tone of this wiki treatment would border on insulting to Wolfe scholars and fans. In fact, I am utterly dismayed. What do you have against this novel and Wolfe?
I'm not suggesting the well-known criticisms of this and all of his works are incorrect, but I do suggest that perhaps you might want to research the positive influence that Angel had on literature during his time.-- Ismaelbobo ( talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
kevinlewis, don't change my pictures first without consulting me. I think grahamhardy supports the new picture as well, and if you are out voted by contributors to this article I think the current picture should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Waalk ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, the section title "Style" is written with no style at all. The syntax is garbled and the writing fatally awkward and awry. I don't wish to rewrite it, as I am not an expert on Thomas Wolfe and might mischaracterize the meaning; but somebody needs to! This sounds like some student's uncorrected term paper. Billcito ( talk) 06:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This article contains several claims like the following
which are laughable, ignorant, and surely don't belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.79.176 ( talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have question regarding the section Plot and its sub section, Part one. Without there being a "Part two", how can there be a Part one? Logically, there could be a division of Part one and Part two, if the text to support it, or the writers manuscript, even. But as it stands now, the subsection is unneeded, or the entry is unfinished. Would someone involved in the article explain this? Or edit out the unnecessary subsection and move the narrative to the plot section. Sjkoblentz ( talk) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Let's get working on this article. It definitely needs a lot of work. Experts in literature lend me your hands. I got most of this. I'm reserching it right now.-- Robert Waalk ( talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
" Pogledaj dom svoj, anđele" ( Serbian for Look Homeward, Angel) is one of Riblja Čorba signature songs, released on their 1985 album Istina
I'm removing this because it seems to trivial, and I think it probably is refering to the poem, or neither, as I'm pretty sure that Look Homeward, Angel, has never been translated into any other languages, and even more certain it's never been on the shelfs in Serbia.-- Robert Waalk ( talk) 22:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm also removing this accordinly: * Petar, Janjatović (2007). YU ROCK enciklopedija 1960-2006. Beograd: Petar Janjatović.
ISBN
9788690531714..--
Robert Waalk (
talk)
21:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
RobertLook Homeward Angel was was translated into German, and was a success there during the 1930s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ismaelbobo ( talk • contribs) 17:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Look Homeward, Angel was translated into Slovenian in 1964. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.61.62.175 ( talk) 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph in the History section is ambiguous: "It is believed that a stone statue of an angel, found in a Hendersonville, North Carolina cemetery, looking to the east was part of the inspiration for this work. A highway marker located on Highway 64, or 6th Avenue West in Hendersonville, at an entrance to Oakdale Cemetery, contains this information." "It is believed" by whom? The highway marker?
If so, wouldn't it be better to say, "A highway marker located at an entrance to Oakdale Cemetery in Hendersonville, North Carolina, says that a stone statue of an angel looking to the east, found in the cemetery, was part of the inspiration for this work."? Altgeld ( talk) 18:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the plot summary to correct punctuation, spelling, and grammar, and to improve its clarity and readability. Although I did not change it, I wonder about the word "raging" in the first paragraph. Does it really add any information? Is a raging alcoholic a recognized type distinct from other alcoholics? Altgeld ( talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Using the word "raging" doesn't seem to add the severity detail you are looking for, as that seems to indicate violence, as in "violent alcoholic. What would be wrong with writing "severe alcoholic" ?
I would also like to mention that the tone of this wiki treatment would border on insulting to Wolfe scholars and fans. In fact, I am utterly dismayed. What do you have against this novel and Wolfe?
I'm not suggesting the well-known criticisms of this and all of his works are incorrect, but I do suggest that perhaps you might want to research the positive influence that Angel had on literature during his time.-- Ismaelbobo ( talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
kevinlewis, don't change my pictures first without consulting me. I think grahamhardy supports the new picture as well, and if you are out voted by contributors to this article I think the current picture should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Waalk ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ironically, the section title "Style" is written with no style at all. The syntax is garbled and the writing fatally awkward and awry. I don't wish to rewrite it, as I am not an expert on Thomas Wolfe and might mischaracterize the meaning; but somebody needs to! This sounds like some student's uncorrected term paper. Billcito ( talk) 06:57, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This article contains several claims like the following
which are laughable, ignorant, and surely don't belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.79.176 ( talk) 11:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I have question regarding the section Plot and its sub section, Part one. Without there being a "Part two", how can there be a Part one? Logically, there could be a division of Part one and Part two, if the text to support it, or the writers manuscript, even. But as it stands now, the subsection is unneeded, or the entry is unfinished. Would someone involved in the article explain this? Or edit out the unnecessary subsection and move the narrative to the plot section. Sjkoblentz ( talk) 18:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)