Review a translation against its source before judging how smooth it sounds. A fluent paragraph can still omit a condition, change a number or make a claim stronger than the original. Meaning and style need separate attention.
W3C’s ITS 2.0 localisation-quality taxonomy distinguishes issues such as mistranslation, omission and terminology. It provides a useful way to name problems without treating polished language as proof of fidelity.
Highlight the names, numbers, conditions and qualifications in the source before reviewing the translation. Finding their counterparts in the translated text gives the first pass a clear focus. A second pass can then attend to natural phrasing and readability.
Mark what must survive
Identify names, dates, quantities, units, qualifications and instructions in the source. Note technical terms that need a consistent target-language equivalent. An ambiguity in the source can be kept as a question for the author or reviewer alongside the translation.
Compare in small units
| Check | Review question |
|---|---|
| Meaning | Does the target express the same claim? |
| Completeness | Has a condition, sentence or exception disappeared? |
| Numbers and units | Are values and conversions appropriate and verified? |
| Terminology | Is the chosen term accurate and consistent? |
| Naturalness | Would a fluent reader understand it as intended? |
An automated back-translation can offer another comparison, but it should not be the sole independent reviewer. Inspect the actual source-to-target relationship.
Preserve uncertainty for the reviewer
Keep a short list of passages that need a fluent person’s judgment. Keep native-language review as a separate step, with its status recorded in the working notes. For local examples or unit changes, check that the adapted text preserves the facts and relevant country context.
Once the meaning is secure, edit for the audience and context. Record substantive corrections so recurring terminology or interpretation problems can be addressed in later work instead of polished away repeatedly.
Review one fictional notice in two passes
Consider a source notice stating that delivery may take five working days after confirmation. Mark the qualification, duration and starting event. The translation needs to preserve all three, using wording natural in the target language.
In the first pass, compare source and target in short units. Check names, dates, numbers, conditions and omissions. In the second, read the translated notice as a whole for clarity and consistency. A terminology list can help when the same concept appears more than once.
Keep an issue log that supports an edit
| Field | Fictional example |
|---|---|
| Passage | Delivery sentence |
| Issue | Starting event omitted |
| Required meaning | Period begins after confirmation |
| Proposed action | Restore that condition in natural target wording |
| Review | Await fluent-language confirmation |
If the source itself leaves the starting event unclear, retain that as a source question. Resolving it may require the author, rather than a stylistic change in the translation.
For local examples or units, document what changed and check the facts involved. Keep the reviewed version of the source alongside the translation so later corrections can be traced to the same text. This gives both meaning and language quality a practical review path.
Consider the invented sentence delivery may take five days. The word may carries part of the meaning and needs an equivalent qualification in the translation. Looking at the sentences side by side helps preserve that detail while allowing the wording to sound natural.
Sources consulted
- Internationalization Tag Set Version 2.0 — W3C; consulted 3 November 2026.