Coolangatta

You're off to a good start, and being an Australian I like the name alot! It does have that beachy feel to it.

The only awkwardness I'm feeling is to do with the height of the double stories in the /g/ and the /y/, the descenders currently look too long and gangly. I would try to pull them up so these letterforms are more compact - a bit like the /g/ in the slab serif at the bottom of this image:



I would also try to bring a bit of individual character to each letterform more. I see you've started off with the squircle which is a nice shape in itself, but it does look very  dominant throughout the text. But I'm sure in time you'll find the voice within the design and start bringing in more idiosyncrasies / personality traits to each letter.

The descenders are too deep, as other are saying. I honk you will need to bring in some stroke modulation. The mono-linearity in the /a and the /n, for instance, leaves you with letterforms looking much too awkward. The terminals on /a, /c, /g, and /t, for instance, are all different. There seems to be no system present. 

That theoretical justification doesn't come through, because for example on your /c/, I don't interpret those terminals as aligning with vectors coming from the letter's center--I just see them as cut perpendicular to the stroke direction when it ends. Thus it seems like a mismatch for the vertical end of /t/'s bottom which isn't similarly perpendicular. 

Nice one Georg

I'm also reminded of how typefaces like Eurostile treat the descender of /g/, it's almost a quarter the height of the bowl:

Straight descenders need to be reined in too! (And ascenders)

Rhythm has improved a bit, though I think there's still room for further improvement. For instance, aren't /a and /e rather wide? I also feel the different letters don't quite agree on how rounded or square the typeface wants to be.

Up close, your curves are often very wobbly; they will need more work.

Yes, thin those tangential joins to avoid dark spots. I also think the open counters of /n/h/u/y/ look wider than the closed counters of /o/p/d/b/q/g/. 

1. The bowl doesn't look balanced to me. The right half looks more squarish then the left half, especially at the bottom (is it vertically symmetrical?). You've probably moved the arches away from the vertical stem too much, or didn't change the right half to match the new shape of the left half.

2. I think you've started thinning the bowl too soon, which contributes to the impression of imbalance. I'd have it starting to thin only after the "corners".

3. The segment where the vertical stem and the bowl coincide looks too wide, in my opinion. The interior of the bowl should probably eat a little into the vertical stem.

I think this is far away from looking like a generic grot.

Simon Cozens said:

Here we go again. I've taken a good long look at curve quality and thinning, and along the way it seems to have grown an uppercase.

The stroke consistency and thinning in the Light look pretty good to me at first sight. I still think the top right quadrant of /a is too heavy, but it seems to be an exception. Moving to the heavier weights, though, the strokes become so monolinear as to look crude. You're going to need more thinning and optical compensation there.

I would suggest working only on a single master until the skeleton is perfect and only then worry the weight spectrum, though. There is still a lot of work to do on the skeleton.

First of all, I'm still having trouble getting a comfortable reading rhythm going due to imbalanced character widths. I'm surprised that Chris suggested some subtle widening and narrowing to avoid repeating elements — I would in fact propose some not-so-subtle adjustments to many glyphs to render them more visually harmonious with the rest. For instance, the /n and /u seem dramatically too wide to me, whereas the /y's narrower bowl conforms to the typeface's conventions much more readily. The /a remains a bit too wide as well. I would recommend choosing a reference glyph (maybe /o or /e) and harmonizing the other letters in strings like «ooooonooooonnnnnooooo». The capitals, on the other hand, strike me as surprisingly narrow compared to the exuberant stride of the lowercase.

Curves: Still room for improvement. The apex of /n and related arches looks bunched up toward the stem to my eyes, whereas I would expect the opposite movement. This also goes for the bottom of /a in the Bold. The /B is very ungainly, and the /s is a train wreck (at least in the Light). The numerals /2/5 suffer from both bad curves and blobby stroke width.

Shapes: I really like your Light /e, but it acquires an overbite in the Bold. The counters of /a/e need balancing in the Bold. Some of the punctuation is incredibly dainty and could use a factor of two of magnification, especially the weirdly hovering colon. The semicolon is vertically misaligned. The guillemets, on the other hand, could be relaxed a little, they're very aggressive right now. The /ð needs work (see link below).

http://66.147.242.192/~operinan/2/2.11/2.1.4.eth.htm

The train wreck part was admittedly a bit hyperbolic. Yes, the straight segment and hard fractures around it were the main problem. The new /s looks much more promising to me.

The stroke width has become a bit less consistent in the process though (generally a bit heavier, but the bottom left is thin). I also have the impression that the bottom is not sitting flat on the baseline, but is sloping slightly to the left. Perhaps compare to the bottom of /o?

The PDF won't open on my machine.

Judging from the low-res picture, I'd say the /n and /u are still too wide in the heavier weights, and the Bold especially would profit from some optical corrections. The /a and /e are very dense, for instance, and stem/bowl junctions tend to clump together.