While current NMT and GPT models improve fluency and context awareness, they struggle with creative texts, where figurative language and stylistic choices are crucial. Current evaluation methods fail to capture these nuances, which requires a more descriptive approach. We propose a taxonomy based on translation techniques to assess machine-generated translations more comprehensively. The pilot study we conducted comparing human machine-produced translations reveals that human translations employ a wider range of techniques, enhancing naturalness and cultural adaptation. NMT and GPT models, even with prompting, tend to simplify content and introduce accuracy errors. Our findings highlight the need for refined frameworks that consider stylistic and contextual accuracy, ultimately bridging the gap between human and machine translation performance.