Talk:Truth/GA3

GA review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Phlsph7 (talk · contribs) 18:21, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 13:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

My gosh, Phlsph, you have bad luck on getting effective GAN reviewers. I'll give this a look-over and give you a conclusive answer at the very least! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 13:44, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Generalissima and thanks for picking up another nomination with a troubled review history! Although getting effective reviews for this type of article can be challenging, it's usually not as problematic as it has been recently. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Prose review

• While I think the use of truthbearer as a term is well-supported, it feels a little ambiguous in the lede as a non-specialist. I initially read it as meaning an individual who bears truth, so it might be worth saying entities such as sentences, propositions, or beliefs that describe things as they are

  Implemented. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Are there not significant discussion of truth in the Chinese philosophical tradition (outside of Buddhism)?

  I don't think so, at least not to the extent found in the other early traditions mentioned. This point is covered in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the history section. For example, from Fraser 2024: The central questions for early Chinese thinkers are not What is the truth, and how do we know it? but What is the dao (way), and how do we follow it?

• Might be worth linking inquiry in the lede and definition section?

  Added. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Definition section very solid and well-written.
• Truthbearer section pretty good. Seems like there could be a potential to diagram a truthful sentence, a truthful proposition, and a truthful belief about the same scenario? This would be only important at an FAC level though.

  Good idea, I gave it a try. However, visually distinguishing sentences from propositions is challenging. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

  That looks good to me! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Truthmakers and truth conditions section seems fine.

Shall continue tomorrow Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:20, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Others section seems fine.
• You do a great job of explaining what the theories of truth are. I can't really nitpick much at all there.
• Might be good to say when Tarski developed his semantic theory.
• Second example statement for synthetic statements is a bit weird - it uses a fairly obscure word (tetchy) and it's slightly confusing to use what would be a falsifiable generalization there.
• Are tautologies and logical truths the same concept? If so, why link to separate articles?
• We'd need a comma after "transcendent, divine reality", no?
• Oh i missed this before, but you should link "empirical" somewhere on the first use in the lead and the body.
• The dinosaur example for truth simpliciter is probably a bad one to use, considering that in scientific parlance, they have survived
• Not finding anything to nitpick in the "in various fields" section
• There's many many birth and death range statements in the history section, to the point where it becomes a little distracting. Obviously having a chronology is helpful, but perhaps you could group people by shared century or time period to avoid this? The MOS cautions that Beyond the first paragraph of the lead section, birth and death details should only be included after a name if there is special contextual relevance.

Will try and do source review tomorrow! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Forgot to say, but all the images are appropriate and correctly licensed. Alt-text is great. An image for the lede would be nice, but I imagine it'd be very hard to come up with anything that encompasses the concept, so I understand if not. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:38, 13 August 2026 (UTC)