ok I've translated all of them except ENTj, which for some reason was missing from the textbook file, hopefully i'll find it online sometime, if anyone knows where to look please tell me.
Here's my final judgments on the descriptions, feel free to add your own. I scored them out of 10
ESFj - 3/10: way too short compared to the rest. The weak functions are given less than half the attention of the positive ones, just doesn't feel complete
INTj - 8/10: I thought it was decent. The INTjs here also seem to have related with a lot of it.
ENTp - 6/10: As some on the forum mentioned, many of the characterisitcs in this profile could easily be seen as applying to another creative n-type.
ISFp - 8/10: Found that it described one ISFp I know very well, however the weak functions were not described as good as the strong ones and I find it harder to apply this description to other "types" of ISFps...
ENFj - 7/10: weak functions are not described well enough
ISTj - 8/10: shorter than the better ones but still seems to work
ESTp - 7/10: very good for male ESTps, but I find this just doesn't work the same for female ESTps.... Filatova totally had a male primarily in mind when she wrote this.
INFp - 9/10: I thought this one was really well done. Presented a rather unique take on INFp, compared to other descriptions.
INTp - 9/10: Really well done "
ESFp - 2/10: Seems like it's striving only to describe a certain type of ESFp... makes the type seem bull-headed and stupid in a way. I thought it was very biased and too short. Needs more complexity
ISFj - 8/10: weak functions should have been better described
INFj - 10/10: It's filatova's type and she did it perfectly
ESTj - 7/10: See final comments
ENFp - 6/10: after reading the INFp, INTp and INFj ones I couldn't help but feel this one didn't really go deep enough into the weak functions
ISTp - 3/10: Kinda like the ESFj one in that it lacks depth, didn't really help me type ISTps. Doesn't really seem to show any weaknesses
a) ESFj, ENTp, ENFp, ISTp, ESTj - These ones were all noticeably more "politically correct" so to speak. Even thier weak functions are made to sound comparably nice and there's hardly anything negative in the strong functions. It almost seems as if she was going "easy" on them, by this I mean that she doesn't write about much negative behavioural patterns here which is disappointing. Thus these types are almost made "more likable" than the rest, which is kind of lame and likely a product of her personal bias. You'll notice that she refrains from using terms such as "manipulates others", or really anything malicious. Where this should have appeared she instead uses "influences" and seemingly justifies the negative traits throughout the descriptions.
b) ISFp, INTj, ENFj, ISTj, ESTp, ISFj - These ones were done well, they seem quite objective, they lack the "likeable" touch that the types above got.
c) INFp, INTp, INFj - These were the best, in my opinion. She wrote candidly of behavioural patterns that aren't necessarily positive. Even the strong functions are made human in a sense. This would have been the ideal style for all the types to be described in.
d) ESFp - Really just seems overly biased, she should have worked harder on this one. It just stands out against the rest, like with the other types I'd have no problem showing my friends of the type their respective description, but I'm not comfortable showing my ESFp friend or my brother this one because it seems insulting and I don't think they'd relate well to it.
ESFj, ISTp and ESFp were definitely the most disappointing, all were VERY short. there's really no complexities explored in them.
Anyways what do you think? Overall I'm pleased with the descriptions and am glad I took the time to make them readable. If anyone knows of better descriptions worth translating please inform me. I was thinking about doing the male/female ones in the summer if I have time before I get a job.