Talk:Truth condition

The article doesn't really explain much about truth conditions and theories and it's original use in philosophy now used in a branch of linguistics, semantics. I needed a definition of truth theory and so I cited a source that better explained it. Ntijerina (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC) The article seems neutral for the most part, but statements such as "almost universally considered" and "One popular argument" in the 3rd paragraph should likely be cited to back up those statements.Jbergmann5 (talk) 07:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I felt that other areas that study truth conditions are severely under-represented. The article only talks about semantics even though truth conditions are heavily involved in philosophy and pragmatics as well. Haleybarton (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

While I appreciate that this article is short and concise, I would like to see another example rather than just the one about Nixon. I believe this would reinforce the topic and provide the reader with a better understanding.

Ebuckingham (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello there! I'm not quite sure which person is the sandbox indicated for this article, but I will leave it on the talk page for now my peer review edit. The changes that I would make to the article would be that there are a couple of syntactical mistakes with the article. For example the following sentence: "One popular argument for this view is that some sentences are necessarily true — that is, they are true whatever happens to obtain." The latter half of that statement is a little at odd's wit for me. It doesn't really make sense, I need some clarity here as far as what the author is trying to say here. The, 'that is, they are true whatever happens to obtain" is pretty meaningless reading it. Another syntactical problem would be the following sentence within the article: "All such sentences have the same truth conditions, but arguably do not thereby have the same meaning." Such sentences is pretty vague here, I would like to have a clearer explanation as to what kind of sentences the author is referring to. But also "but arguably do not thereby have the same meaning" does not make any sense. I need this to be corrected. Other than that, everything is pretty neutral, conveys direct information for a general audience but does require some more important references using 'truth condition'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntijerina (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation
The article is not well-developed. Both content and structure should be improved. A Table of Content must be added. Major sections with subheadings should be included. More reliable sources should be cited to support the content and provide various viewpoints on the topic. Grammatical errors should be taken into consideration. Examples should be pointed out clearly for readers to follow. Some visual aids can be added to enhance understanding.--Thaonhiphan (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Although the article has good examples and is easy to read, the article lacks a breakdown of the major sections and needs more information and better structure. Along with information the article should have reliable sources cited that could be accessible. The ones that are listed aren't accessible. Giselleee16 (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Although the article was short, and easy to follow it could still use improvements. For one the article could have had some visuals to better help the reader. They could have also used more than just the Nixon example to help with clarity. Vidadulce (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Evaluation
This article needs a lot. For starters, I think adding more examples would be helpful to the reader. Referencing more sources is a good place to start. There should also be more sections and a table of contents. The sections can provide more information about the history of truth conditions for example. Semantics and Pragmatics can be its own section and maybe adding a section about truth conditions in other subjects besides linguistics, like philosophy, can offer a better explanation of truth conditions. Separating the part where it explains truth conditions and where it shows an example would also be a good idea. Sampoidk (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Sampoidk (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)