Talk:Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana

Bad translation
I have verified that this article, after its introduction, is a raw machine translation (from the Spanish-language Wikipedia) by Google Translate, without any evidence of having been edited by a human being! That's why it reads like so much gibberish. I'm afraid it needs much more than correction of its many errors of syntax, word choice, punctuation, etc. In my opinion it is not appropriate, in this article on the dictionary, to present the "lonely, restless lifetime" of its author; it doesn't matter whether he was "a guy hard to find today" (even if this were expressed in a properly formal register of language). "Moorish" is not a language, and the dictionary does not contain "filler". It is impossible to guess the meanings of "the reserved matters [that] fill the modern spoken language"; or of "appointments in the strictly literary texts"; or of "tiny details found in the most distant and disparate"; or of "the testimony of upcoming and other remote languages". I would suggest that the article be reduced to its introduction—deleting everything from the word "Idiosyncrasy" to the end—until someone steps forward who can compose (from scratch) a lean, coherent—and preferably documented— description of the dictionary in standard English. Kotabatubara (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding gibberish
To avoid any possible gibberish, I have copied the section labeled "Content" from the article Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano e hispánico (written by native speaking people) removing the phrases not aplicable to its predecessor this "Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana"--Mcapdevila (talk) 06:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is still plagued by gibberish. At the end of the introduction, the quotation(s?) from Josep Pla is/are incomprehensible. (One or two quotations?  There are three quotation marks.) In the body of the article, the section "Content" is not badly written, but the section "Idiosyncrasy of the dictionary" still contains gibberish that reads like machine translation, including the section title itself.  Obscure phrases include "trying not to get arguments against any ideas" and most of the final sentence of the section.  There are a number of verbs that seem to be without subjects, and punctuation errors abound. Kotabatubara (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)