Tarski's truth theorem asserts that a truth definition for a (reasonably strong) theory cannot be formalized within that theory.
It seems that Tarski's theory of truth has met with a lot of criticism. For examples, Hilary Putnam commented in “A comparison of something with something else”: As a philosophical account of truth, Tarski’s theory fails as badly as it is possible for an account to fail; Hartry Field in an influential discussion and diagnosis of what is lacking in Tarski’s account, pointed out that Tarski’s theory does not offer an account of reference and satisfaction at all. Rather, it only offers a number of disquotation clauses such as "‘Snow’ refers to snow".
So I wonder if Tarski's theory of truth is widely accepted in philosophical logic.