An English page can be grammatically correct and still feel translated. I notice this particularly in openings: an indirect introduction that feels natural in Turkish may delay the subject unnecessarily in English.
First reading: put the original aside
I read the English page on its own. Is its subject, audience and question clear? An expression that only makes sense when the Turkish original is consulted has not finished its job.
Long noun phrases, internal terminology and literal idioms deserve attention. A shorter, more natural sentence need not reduce the idea’s depth. The same detail can survive in a different sentence structure.
Second reading: compare meaning
I then place the versions side by side. Do roles, dates, scope and contributions agree? Has a possibility in Turkish become a certainty in English? Fluency does not make that change acceptable.
Examples also need review. A local reference may require brief context. Adding an untrue address or claim of activity to appeal to European readers is not localisation.
Third reading: inspect the surrounding interface
Navigation, buttons, form options, dates, image descriptions and search messages belong to the same experience. An English article with Turkish error messages feels unfinished. The language switch should also reach the actual corresponding page.
Writing clearly for readers in Türkiye and Europe does not mean treating them as one cultural group. I try to reduce unnecessary local assumptions while preserving the distinct perspective of the writing.
Final reading: is the same person speaking?
The English version can inadvertently become harsher, more emphatic or excessively corporate. As part of cross-market brand voice, I examine the relationship created by the tone. A careful observation in Sinem’s Turkish text should not become a guaranteed outcome in English.
I assess localisation by whether two readers can understand the same thought with comparable clarity, not by how closely the sentences resemble one another.