Bilingual content: an editorial workflow for English and Polish

For an English and Polish publishing project, start by deciding what each article should help its reader do. Our proposed workflow treats the two articles as separate editorial assignments with a shared set of approved facts. Use it to commission a practical guide, a service explanation or an onboarding article. The examples below are hypothetical, and the working rules are our editorial recommendations rather than established requirements.

Google distinguishes a multilingual website, which offers content in more than one language, from a multiregional website, which explicitly targets users in different countries. Google's multilingual site documentation In our proposed assignment form, record language and target market as separate fields. For an English article, name the intended audience instead of treating “international readers” as a complete brief.

Commission two reader tasks

Write an assignment for each article before creating an outline. Our proposed template asks for a reader, a question, a practical task, approved source material and an editor responsible for acceptance. Keep the task specific enough to review. For example, ask an English article to explain what a prospective customer should include in an initial enquiry. Ask a Polish article to explain how to prepare for the first discussion, if that is the actual assignment.

Do not adopt those differences without checking the project brief. They are illustrative choices, not assumptions about English or Polish readers. If both audiences need the same answer, commission the same task in both languages. Still specify who will review each version and what information they may change during editing.

Add an explicit boundary to each assignment. In our proposed convention, the writer may reorganize explanations and devise hypothetical examples but must obtain approval before adding service commitments. List unresolved items as questions: which materials are required, who responds to enquiries, and whether any stated schedule has been approved. Leave those questions visible until the responsible person answers them.

For acceptance, write a short sentence describing the intended result of reading. An example is: “The reader can identify the information requested in the enquiry.” Treat that sentence as an editorial target to assess, not a promise of an outcome for every reader.

Establish the shared evidence record

Google's content assessment questions ask whether material supplies original information or analysis, describes its topic substantially, and adds value beyond copying or rewriting sources. They also ask about clear sourcing and easily verified factual errors. Google's people-first content guidance

Our proposed evidence record has four fields: the statement you plan to make, the supporting source passage, the permitted scope of the statement and any unresolved question. Begin with the statements central to the reader's task. For a hypothetical service article, these could include the approved service scope and the information requested before a meeting. Do not invent those details to fill the template.

Give both writers access to this record, but ask them to examine the evidence themselves. Under our convention, a writer should flag a sentence that requires an additional source rather than silently expanding an approved statement. If the evidence supports a description of a process, do not turn it into an assurance about results. If it supports only one situation, preserve that boundary.

Add original editorial work through your proposed checklist, worked example or clearly labelled decision aid. Keep those contributions separate from sourced assertions. For instance, introduce a sample enquiry with “Here is our proposed template,” then show the fields you recommend. Avoid describing your template as an industry standard unless you have evidence for that separate claim.

Choose what each writer can adapt

Our proposed convention fixes the meaning of approved factual statements while allowing the writers to choose their own explanatory structure. Before drafting, agree on product names, key terms and the next action you want to offer. Then commission examples suited to each assignment rather than asking the second writer to reproduce every paragraph of the first.

Consider a hypothetical article about preparing an enquiry. One outline might begin with a sample message and then explain its fields. Another might begin with a preparation checklist and finish with the message. Choose the structure against the assignment, and explain the decision in the editorial notes. Neither outline needs to become a universal rule for its language.

Create a short project glossary for terms requiring deliberate choices. Record the intended meaning, the approved expression in each language and an example sentence. Treat the glossary as a project convention. Ask the relevant language editor to assess expressions in context instead of accepting a term solely because it appears in the paired column.

Keep a separate list of changes that require factual approval. In our proposed workflow, changing a hypothetical person's name is an editorial choice; changing what a service includes requires confirmation. Apply the same distinction to examples. Mark them as hypothetical and inspect them for promises that have slipped into the narrative.

Give each language a publication plan

Google recommends different URLs for language versions and hreflang annotations to identify the appropriate variants. It also recommends links that let users choose another language version and advises against automatic language redirects based on assumptions about a user's language. Google's language-version recommendations

Our proposed publication sheet should list the intended address, page title, language-switch label and corresponding article for each version. Ask the person responsible for implementation to confirm those entries. A proposed address in an editorial document should remain marked as a proposal until someone checks the published page.

Google says it determines page language from visible content and recommends using one language for content and navigation on each page, while avoiding side-by-side translations. Google's page-language guidance For our editorial review, include the heading, navigation text, buttons, captions and final call to action alongside the main article. Give each item its own acceptance decision.

Keep the language switch and the article's next action separate in the review sheet. Ask the reviewer to follow both links and record their destinations. If a corresponding article has not been published, flag that unresolved publication decision rather than approving a guessed destination.

Review meaning before polishing style

We propose two review passes for each article. In the first, compare externally verifiable statements with their evidence. Check names, scope, quantities and any stated conditions. Ask the reviewer to record whether each statement is supported, needs narrowing or requires more information. Do not use the approval of the English version as the approval of the Polish version.

In the second pass, assess the writing against its own assignment. Read the opening, example and next action together. Ask whether the article actually answers the commissioned question. Then review terminology and sentence structure in that language. Permit a different paragraph order when the editor can explain how it serves the brief.

Our proposed acceptance exercise is simple: give a reviewer the article and ask them to describe the requested preparation and next step. Record the answer and any point of hesitation. This exercise is an editorial checkpoint, not evidence that the article will produce a particular business outcome.

Before signing off, collect unresolved questions in one place. Assign an owner and a decision to each. Replace vague approval notes such as “looks fine” with a specific scope: facts accepted, language accepted, links checked or further work required.

Maintain the pair as a small publishing project

Our proposed maintenance record contains a change description, its evidence or approval, the affected language versions and the editor's decision. When an approved service detail changes, open both articles and decide what each needs. When a stylistic edit concerns only one version, record that limited scope. Do not require identical wording as the condition for accepting the pair.

The Max AI registration page includes English and Polski in its language selection. Max AI registration To prepare your own project, our recommendation is to collect two assignments, a shared evidence record and a named reviewer for each language. Our proposed next step is to visit the registration page and keep the brief available as your own working document. Set a concrete first milestone: accept the assignments and resolve missing information before commissioning the drafts.