Second-round translation review

Review the translation visitors actually receive.

Export rendered target-language body copy after the first import, review it in page order, return only targeted corrections, and verify the real multilingual page before publishing.

Why the second round matters

A correct CSV cell can still read badly on a complete page.

First-round translation works with protected source units. Review Export adds the context needed to judge flow, visible composition, and relationships between neighboring blocks.

Sentence context

Catch missing logic

Review complete rendered sentences for missing predicates, unnatural transitions, repeated wording, false friends, or a tone that only looks acceptable in an isolated cell.

Visible structure

See the reading order

Headings, paragraphs, list markers, table rows, captions, and real block boundaries remain ordered so spacing and structural problems become visible.

Inline links

Review words around anchors

Inline-link sentences remain whole, making it possible to detect word-order, punctuation, and boundary problems that cannot be judged from the anchor text alone.

Correct order: complete the first protected Import and clear relevant caches before creating Review Export files. Otherwise you may review an older rendered page rather than the translation you just wrote.
Create the review export

Select source pages; StagLingo opens every target URL.

Open StagLingo → Review Export. Enter default-language pages, select the target languages to review, and let the plugin derive their public multilingual URLs.

  1. 01

    Enter one same-site default-language URL or published content ID per line. Use Page URLs and Content Discovery when preparing a larger list.

  2. 02

    Select one or more configured target languages. An unpublished language may not have a public URL available for review.

  3. 03

    Keep the language order configured by TranslatePress, or sort alphabetically by language name or shortcode.

  4. 04

    Open Review file options only when you need to change delivery, format, or file layout.

Use source-language URLs here: do not paste translated URLs into the page field. StagLingo uses the source page as the stable starting point and generates each selected language URL itself.
StagLingo Review Export tab for selecting source pages, target languages, delivery, format and layout
The screenshot is displayed at its natural proportions. No fixed height or crop is applied.
Fixed review scope

Review Export isolates the public body instead of copying the whole site chrome.

The purpose is to review the page-specific reading experience. Global and unrelated interface regions are intentionally kept outside this second-round document.

Included in rendered order

Page body content

  • Visible headings and paragraphs
  • Lists and their markers
  • Tables as ordered rows
  • Captions
  • Complete sentences containing inline links
  • A breadcrumb rendered inside the article may remain as useful context
Excluded from this review document

Global and peripheral interface

  • Site header and footer
  • Table of contents
  • Author and date metadata
  • Forms and search controls
  • Popups, banners, and notices
  • Previous and next article navigation
This is not a database reconstruction: Review Export fetches the public target-language result currently served by the site. For broader global components or attributes, use the appropriate Export content scope instead.
Recommended file options

Use one AI Review Package with plain-text review files.

The defaults are optimized for the second round with the separate StagLingo translation Skill. Standard review files remain available for a human-only or custom review process.

Alternative delivery

Standard review files

Creates ordinary review documents using the selected layout without the AI package manifest and orchestration instructions.

  • Useful for manual inspection or another controlled process.
  • Does not by itself create protected correction rows.
  • Any later Import still requires a valid reviewed import package or correctly structured CSV.
Plain text (.txt) — recommended

Smaller and faster for AI review while preserving headings, paragraph breaks, list markers, and tab-separated table rows.

Word document (.docx)

Easier for a person to browse visually, but larger and unnecessary for the normal Skill-based review route.

Organize the review files

Choose a layout that matches how the batch will be reviewed.

Every layout downloads once. The layout changes document grouping—not which public pages are fetched or how the review package identifies the batch.

Default

One file per language

One ZIP contains a review file for each selected language; each file contains all selected pages for that language.

Page-centered

One upload-ready ZIP per page

One transport ZIP contains a page ZIP for each URL; each page ZIP contains all selected languages for that page.

Most granular

Page folders with language files

Each page receives a folder containing a separate review file for every selected language.

Single document

One combined file

All selected pages and languages are placed in one document. It is compact but less convenient for independent locale review.

≤ 50

One Review Export is limited to 50 page-language combinations. Multiply the number of source pages by the number of selected languages. For example, 5 pages × 9 languages = 45 combinations. If the result exceeds 50, divide it into separate batches.

From review to correction

Keep the rendered review tied to its original source identities.

The review document contains what visitors see, but it does not invent safe CSV row identities. The original first-round source package remains the identity authority for targeted corrections.

01

Download the AI Review Package

Use AI Work Package ZIP, Plain text, and the layout appropriate for the batch.

02

Return to the same translation conversation

Upload the complete review ZIP to the conversation that processed the first source package and invoke translatepress-ai-work-batch. If that context is unavailable, provide the exact original source package with the review package.

03

Review every locale independently

The review should compare rendered copy with the original source context and return corrections only where a real language, completeness, terminology, tone, or page-flow problem exists.

04

Import one sparse correction ZIP

Import the returned reviewed_import_package through Import Reviewed Translations. Blank cells and / preserve already accepted translations.

Never reconstruct row identities from the review text: if the original source package is unavailable, stop and restore that context. Guessing post_id, content_type, exact_english_source, or source_hash would bypass the reason the protected workflow exists.
Final verification

Inspect the actual target-language URL before making it indexable.

Review Export improves language review, but the final release decision belongs to the real page visitors receive after the correction import and cache refresh.

01

Clear every cache layer

Clear the relevant WordPress, page-builder, server, and CDN caches. A correct stored translation can remain hidden behind an older cached response.

02

Use the exact language URL

Open the real target-language URL in a private browser window. Do not judge the result only from the WordPress admin screen or source-language page.

03

Read the complete page

Check the H1, paragraphs, lists, tables, captions, linked sentences, punctuation, and block order—not just whether translated words appear.

04

Test visible interactions

Open links, expand accordions, switch tabs, and inspect responsive layouts where relevant. Conditional or JavaScript-rendered content may not appear in an immediate server request.

05

Separate language from application

A fluent translation can still be attached to an inactive string, and an application warning can occur even when the visitor-visible copy is correct. Diagnose the correct layer.

Failures that require action

Validation, protected-field, backup, transaction, rollback, or storage read-back failure means the write was rejected or could not be proven. Do not publish on the basis of a visual spot-check alone.

When the front end is the authority

If storage read-back succeeded but the result is stored_but_frontend_unconfirmed, “not detected,” or a front-end request warning, clear caches and inspect the real page. Dynamic related cards or conditional content may be absent from that request; if visitor-visible copy is correct, that specific visibility warning can be treated as conservative.