I went through a phase where I had to be trained up a bit when I started out as a researcher. My written communication wasn't great. I went to high school in the Netherlands where I learned English. I am not a native speaker. But I wasn't able to write well in my native language either. I was doing my master thesis at the time and had already agreed to continue doing a PhD. I was writing what would be my first published article at the same time. My style and grammar were poor. Sentences didn't connect. The text was poorly structured. I was making all the beginners mistakes that somebody that is not used to writing professionally makes. I managed to get it published at a conference. But it wasn't great.
The best advice I got from my professor at the time was that anything you do systematically wrong you can learn to do right. You just need to understand what you are doing wrong. He provided a lot of feedback on what I was doing wrong and why and I got better at writing rapidly. He was very patient with me, except when he caught me doing things wrong which he had corrected me on already. After a few months, I was catching most of my own mistakes. I learned to review text at the same time. I was reviewing lots of papers by others as well as my own work. So, I got a lot of examples of good and bad papers while I was also trying to figure out my own writing.
Another insight here is that writing text is a bit like programming. You can't reference things you haven't talked about yet. There's a sequence of presenting things and an expected structure. Dead code elimination is a thing as well: remove text that no longer serves a purpose. Text needs to be logical, self contained, etc. Lots of coupling is not great. Low cohesion is bad as well. Keeping text simple and minimal and flowing naturally is an art. You can challenge yourself to say the same thing with less words. Very useful if you have a hard word count or page limit.