User:BobLee4/sandbox

Phatic Expressions Draft in User:Ntijerina/sandbox

Article evaluation
I am evaluating the truth conditions article.

The opening sentences in which gives the an explanation of what truth conditions is, this sentences is a bit clunky and confusing. This article does not have any citations or references of where this information came from. "Theoretical entities" does not have an article for it even though it is linked. The link for "Inductive definition" takes you to an article that talks about inductive definitions in mathematics and computer science. The link for "set" also takes you to an article about sets in a mathematical way. The "living things" link takes you to an article talking about a band's album named "Living Things". Ordered pair is also a thing that is used in mathematics. The article looks like it was written by a mathematician with the wording and all the links to mathematical articles. The article is not organized it has no subheadings. The use of "one popular argument' in the article can persuade the reader into thinking this argument is the best because many people believe it. Although truth conditions also has to deal with pragmatics in the article it only talks about truth conditions semantically. In categories for the article only semantics is listed not pragmatics or linguistics. The article has been rated on the project's quality scale and was rated as Start-Class. This article is apart of the "wikiproject philosophy".

Hi BobLee4

I like how you set your plans to make it less confusing for readers. I see you stated that you do not see categories that deal with pragmatics. Do you have any sources that you could use yet? I didn't see any sources you might want to be adding, do you have sources possibly? One more question, it seams one argument is persuasive, like you stated above, which isn't ideal for wiki. Do you have plans to edit that to not be persuasive?

Great plans for your article.

From Cainss

Cainss (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)Cainss