Map the variants
For each canonical page, record available languages, URLs, missing variants and pages with genuinely equivalent topics.
GUIDE / PROTOCOL
Audit a multilingual website
A language version should answer its reader in that language and lead to the right page throughout the journey.
Direct answer
What should a multilingual audit check?
Inventory pages and variants, then compare technical declarations with the content actually served. A valid URL is insufficient when text, links, forms or images send readers to another language.
01 / Review method
Review method
Inspect signals
Check status, self-referencing canonical per language, reciprocal hreflang, x-default, sitemap and the document lang attribute.
Read as a visitor
Review headings, menus, cards, FAQs, forms, validation messages, internal links and image alternatives in every language.
Test the entire journey
Switch language mid-journey, follow links, submit dummy data and check mobile rendering, including right-to-left layouts.
02 / Evidence to keep
Evidence to keep
URL matrix
One row per page intent, with variants, status, canonical and reciprocity.
Content capture
Title, main answer, navigation, form and check date for each language.
Issue log
Untranslated string, wrong-language link, missing variant or changed meaning, with priority.
Native review
Have decisive text checked by a proficient reader and record corrections.
PRACTICAL CHECK
Before reaching a conclusion
A frequent misreading and the check that helps avoid it.
Premature conclusion
Valid hreflang links do not guarantee that versions answer the same intent. Literal translation can preserve structure while losing local context.
Decisive check
Compare the question, examples, units, dates and internal links in each language. Also check reciprocal alternates, language-specific canonical URLs and text direction changes.
AFTER THE REVIEW
Decide from the evidence
A translation has no equivalent page
Do not declare hreflang to a page answering a different intent. Build a useful counterpart or leave the relation absent and guide readers another way.
The language switcher loses context
Connect variants of the current page, then test the full journey, forms and internal links in every language.
Decision and review trail
Decision and review trail
What the check must help decide and what to retain so the choice can be reviewed.
Sufficient evidence
Test each language on its URL, canonical, alternates, visible content and return links. Include missing pages and parameter variations.
Next decision
Fix related pages together and publish reciprocal hreflang links. Declare a language available only when its content and navigation work.
Detailed inspection cases
Typical situations for preparing a check. They do not describe completed assignments or actual observations.
The menu is translated, the journey is not
What to inspect
Follow search, a profile, a download and a form in every language.
Decision and action
Correct steps that switch language; a translated heading alone does not validate a journey.
Record to retain
Starting URL, steps, read language and result language.
The source covers another territory
What to inspect
Compare text language, applicable country and the reference’s scope.
Decision and action
Translate the explanation without extending the document’s coverage; specify territories actually covered.
Record to retain
Language, territory, primary document and retained limits.
An error returns in the wrong language
What to inspect
Trigger an empty state or invalid input in every language version.
Decision and action
Localize the explanation and keep the useful destination in that language.
Record to retain
Verified language, state, message and recovery link.
Review before deciding
These questions complement the method. They help establish what is actually supported while retaining qualifications in the record.
Complete journey
Does a real task retain the selected language through errors, confirmations, documents and related links? Also check numbers, dates and right-to-left passages.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- The Arabic form retains its fields, but the error message and confirmation remain French.
- Declared state
- Observed discrepancy
- Decision and next check
- Correct secondary states and retest an error followed by success in the selected language.
Reciprocal alternatives
Does each language alternative point to its equivalent, with consistent visible language and canonical? Repeat the check when a page is merged or retired.
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- The French page declares an English alternative; the English return link has not been checked.
- Declared state
- Not checked
- Decision and next check
- Do not claim reciprocity. Open the destination and compare actual alternatives.
Language of passages
Do passages retained in another language have their own lang declaration? The page language does not automatically describe every quotation.
Documentation consulted : W3C · Declaring language in HTML ·
View a worked decision
Fictional example: the state applies only to the criterion and scope described.
- Fictional observation
- A Spanish quotation in a French page is delimited and marked lang="es".
- Declared state
- Verified within this scope
- Decision and next check
- The language change is identified for this passage. Check other passages and rendering with the selected reading aids.
TOOLS / REGISTERS
Information to record
Check every page–language pair, including menus, forms, errors and outgoing links. Correct hreflang markup does not guarantee a translated journey.
- Access date and time zone
- Exact URL
- Variant URL
- Language / region
- Reciprocal hreflang
- Observed result
- Decision / next action
- Review owner
- Next review
03 / FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Should every canonical point to French?
No. An equivalent translated page may declare its own URL as canonical.
Can an incomplete language be published?
Yes, if available pages have value and omissions are explicit; do not declare a nonexistent variant.
Why test forms?
Labels, errors, acknowledgements and redirects can remain in another language after the page appears translated.
What if two markets use the same language?
Add regional variants only when the content or offer genuinely differs, and document the target codes and URLs.
04 / Official references
Official references
05 / Continue reading
Continue reading
Describe a context
DOCUMENTED REFERENCE
Language tags: script, region and publication country are distinct
A BCP 47 tag identifies content language and may include script, region or a variant. It does not identify author nationality or server country. These examples come from RFC 5646; x-default is a separate hreflang convention.
| Reference | Value or form | What it identifies |
|---|---|---|
| sr-Latn-RS | sr / Latn / RS | Serbian in Latin script as used in Serbia: three separate subtags for language, script and region. |
| sr-Cyrl | sr / Cyrl | Serbian in Cyrillic script. No region is specified, so do not infer a location. |
| zh-Hant | zh / Hant | Chinese in Traditional script. Hant identifies a script, not a territory. |
| de-CH-1901 | de / CH / 1901 | German as used in Switzerland with the 1901 orthographic variant; the final number is not the document date. |
| es-419 | es / 419 | Spanish associated with Latin America and the Caribbean. A region subtag can have three digits rather than two letters. |
| x-default | hreflang | Fallback value for alternate pages in Google Search, not a BCP 47 language for the html lang attribute. |
Implication for the record
Use hyphens in web tags and check subtags in the IANA registry. Set lang, writing direction and alternate links separately: language alone does not determine direction, and a correct tag does not prove translation completeness.
Primary documentation
- IETF · RFC 5646, language tag components and examples
- IANA · Language Subtag Registry
- Google Search Central · Localized page versions
Documentation consulted on .
Related checks
DEEPER READING / PRACTICE
Discover the differences between language versions
Two versions present a different offer or refer to incoherent destinations. The audit must identify the gap and its effect on the reader before proposing a correction.
Updated on .
Priority checks
Compare corresponding pages, titles, descriptions, language links and actions. Check the dynamic elements, including search, filters, download and form validation.
Interpretation pitfalls
The presence of a language selector does not prove the coverage of the site. A valid link can lead to a page that meets another intention.
Working record to retain
The cover table indicates the expected version, available version, equivalent and the obstacle observed. Priority corrections concern incomplete pathways and contradictory information.
PRACTICAL CASE / WORKED EXAMPLE
The selector leads to another intention.
The example is a web control educational situation. It connects the defect to a concrete path and describes a way to verify the correction, rather than consider the only publication of the change as a proof of resolution.
Example context
From a detailed guide, the language change opens a general page. The link exists and the language is correct, but the resource no longer answers the initial question.
Suggested approach
Compare the expected versions and real destinations. Examine titles, sections and actions. Defining the correspondence relevant or clearly presenting the absence of an equivalent version.
Conclusion and next step
The defect is classified as a gap of course and content. The correction is controlled from the home page in each language concerned.
Questions for deeper practice
How do we distinguish a translation from an adaptation?
Compare the intention and the necessary information. An adaptation can change the examples while responding to the same need; a general page that leaves the question is another path.
DETAILED WORKSHOP / APPLICATION
Map gaps in language coverage
01 / Prepare the necessary information
Assemble the corresponding URLs and important routes. Preparing a distinctive grid of absent version, adaptation, incomplete content and incoherent destination.
02 / Carry out the approach
Compare pages by intention and functionality. Examine selectors, metadata, links and messages. Repeat the differences that interrupt understanding or action before setting priorities.
03 / Examine an alternative situation
If a translation is correct but its path changes language, treat the gap as a difficulty of continuation. The quality of writing does not close this control.
04 / Decide on the next step
The audit is operational when each gap specifies pages, languages and effects. Common anomalies in multiple versions are linked to their component or shared source.
05 / Hand over the verification records
Transmit a cover table with examples and corrections. The operation test after modification starts from the same page and follows the same action in the languages concerned.
ANNOTATED WORKING DOCUMENT / REVIEW GRID
Language coverage and version difference table
The table distinguishes the missing version, adaptation, missing information and breakthrough. Each anomaly retains the URLs, languages and conditions that allow it to be reproduced.
On a small screen, scroll the grid horizontally to read all three columns.
| Observation | Supported interpretation | Next step |
|---|---|---|
| The corresponding pages meet the same needs. | Equivalence is observed for controlled elements and interactions. | Follow the operation test of dynamic components and related documents. |
| The selector opens a general resource. | The destination changes the intention despite a correct language. | Defining a relevant correspondence or announcing the absence of an equivalent. |
| A mistake appears in a single language branch. | The nominal path is not enough to validate this version. | Test the validation cases and the shared components concerned. |
Reviewing the working document
The final review checks the effect on the reader, beyond differences in wording. Priorities distinguish substantive inconsistencies, blocked actions and deliberate editorial adaptations.
REPORTING / EXAMPLE WORDING
Presentation of results: Identify the differences between language versions
Point to clarify
A difference in formulation can be a legitimate adaptation or a fundamental difference.
Before handing over
Describe the effect observed for the reader rather than count all the text differences.
Example of a qualified conclusion
The report gap changes the information or continuation indicated in the file. Stylistic differences without effect on the need are classified separately.