Draft talk:Spa Conference (2-3 July 1918)

revision

@Mathglot I have reviewed this one. Could you take a look and see if it's ready to be moved to mainspace? Thanks Sintropepe (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Sintropepe. Are you an ESL speaker, native in Portuguese? Some of the translation seems off, and some grammar and syntax issues as well. There are some verbs in the past that use the present perfect ('They have VERBed') when they should use the simple past ('They VERBed').

The translation is uneven, with some of it easy to understand, and other parts requiring a lot of effort. This sentence is both too long, and unparseable for me:

To impose peace conditions consistent with the war goals of the Reich, Erich Ludendorff, the main spokesperson for the German hardliners, supporters of the realization of the program of war goals,[10] wished to lead the great battle of annihilation which have been dreaming of German strategists since the outbreak of the conflict in the West, the break having to be obtained by shock troops and their unlimited tactical and strategic exploitation once the Allied front is broken.

For example, who was "dreaming of German strategists"? My guess is nobody, and maybe the subject and object have been reversed, so that that German strategists were dreaming of the great battle of annihilation; but that's not what it says.

A simple question to ask about a sentence, is: what is the subject, and what is the verb? In that sentence, the subject is relatively easy to find, and it is "Erich Ludendorff"; but what is the verb? What is Ludendorff doing? "Wishing"? If so, that verb is separated from the subject by a clause whose function I don't understand. And then there's the final clause, starting with "the break...", and I don't know what that's doing there. This sounds like it might work better as three or four sentences, maybe.

But this is just one sentence, and I think the whole article needs to be copyedited for proper English syntax and grammar and for encyclopedic tone. I haven't really used automated grammar checkers, but you could try putting the article through one of them, and see what suggestions it offers. I didn't really read the whole thing, and if you fix those issues, I can look again. Adding 7804j. Mathglot (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey! I will review it again and check the original with more attention. I suspected that I would leave some mistakes uncorrected. Thanks for your revision. Sintropepe (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I confess that the first revision was rough and there were lots of senseless and disorganized information. Now I think most thinks make sense. Could you take a look now @Mathglot? Thanks again for your eye. Sintropepe (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Mathglot Thanks for flagging these! For the context, the person who originally published this is no longer with OKA due to repeated quality issues, hence why Sintropepe was taking on the revisions 7804j (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@7804j:, thanks for that explanation. Sintropepe, thanks for taking this on. For the time being, I have removed the Draft submitted header and replaced it with unsubmitted draft for now. Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)