Proofreading — What Happens After Translation

Proofreading makes a translated script read naturally and consistently in the target language. The translator carries the meaning; the proofreader makes it sound like English written by a person.

How it differs from translation

The translator looks at the source; the proofreader may not. Proofreading does not ask "is this correct?" but "would a native speaker phrase it this way?" A proofreader who knows the source language is a bonus, not a requirement — and treating it as a requirement is why most groups have no proofreader at all.

How it differs from QC

	Proofreading	QC
When	Before typesetting	After typesetting
Looks at	The script	The script on the page
Cost to fix	Low	High (typesetting has to be redone)

The most expensive defect is a phrasing problem that survives to QC: the text is corrected, but the typesetting is redone.

Who covers it when there is no proofreader?

In most small groups, nobody holds the role. Line-level feedback then falls to whoever performs the next step — the typesetter or the editor. That is a workable arrangement, on one condition: they need somewhere to leave comments on the script. Otherwise corrections scatter into chat and never reach the translator.

Keeping terms consistent

The only durable answer is a shared glossary: character names, technique names, honorifics, recurring phrases. Without one, consistency depends on the proofreader's memory — and resets when the proofreader changes.

What belongs in the glossary is whatever is arguable: whether a name was localised, whether titles were translated, whether SFX were lettered or left.

Related

Proofread scripts go to typesetting, then QC.