I think the top counter of /A/ needs to be bigger, whether by lowering the crossbar or spreading the vertex or some combination of the two. You could also spread the top vertices of /M/ to help even out the counters there, too.
You might consider extending the ends of /C/S/c/s/ to reduce the admitted white space.

Take a little more care in positioning your diacritics consistently. The diereses in particular are scattered all over the place. ë looks like the right height to use as a model for the others.

The percent and the perthousand should be of the same design. But that percent... well, let's not talk about it. The perthousand is better but still a bit weird. Consider shorter o's that are not as scaled down.

Ok thanks for your thoughts. I'm too pressed for time to revise the font. I'll post a revise in a few.

Best,

dglen

seems like, optically, the descender loop and the x-height bowl of the lowercase /g/ could be switched. I don't know if this breaks technical rules but the vertical weight seems top heavy.

@dglen: For what purpose are you refining the typeface?

Your diacritics is really, really bad. But as I come from a language that don't use diacritics other then in some loan words, I won't make any suggestions about what to do with them.

Your ÄÖäö, is neither characters with umlauts, nor characters with diaresis, nor the Nordic characters.

I would suggest you study typefaces popular in languages where either diaeresis is used, or typefaces that is popular with German, Swedish and Finnish. Some typefaces succeed with using the same glyphs for both characters with the diacritic umlaut and the Nordic characters (the Nordic characters have evolved from blackletter ligatures, similar to how W an Y came into existence, the German diacritic umlaut came later as Germanophones was later with using Roman letters in writing and print).

The two glyphs that looks like an a or A with a ring above is used as a character in Swedish, Danish, Norweigian and Finnish, or as an A with a diacritic in some African and Asian languages (but your font lack many other glyphs needed to support those languages). It is also used as a symbol for the SI-unit Ångström (from a Swedish name).

Å is badly designed in almost all digital typefaces. The Ring and the character should give the impression of sharing the same blackness (it is ONE character, one unit, not a character with a ligature). The two parts should be close enough to look like one glyph, but not so close that the ring and the A look like they touch each other (it should not look like they where doing the hanky panky), this cause trouble because a digital font give different impressions when scaled to different sizes. Almost always is the ring either to large or to small, it is usually to thin, especially in bold fonts. The ring and the A should match each other the same way the dot and the stem in an lower case i do (all the Nordic characters (ÅÄÖÆØåäöæø) should give this impression of being ONE character, one glyph, just like i). As there is lack of good digital type designs of Å to study, it is best to look at either old lead type prints in Nordic languages, that use Å, or the handwriting of natives from the Nordic countries.

If you will use your font only with Nordic languages, then the space between the "diacritics" and the base character don't need to be at the same level in lower case or upper case, neither do they need to be at the same visual distance from the base characters in the two cases, but they absolutely must be positioned the same in glyphs within each case (like they where threaded on a straight line). If you will use the font with German, then the umlaut must in both upper and lower case, either be positioned at the same visual distance from the base character or be at the same level above the base character, either way, the same rule apply within the cases as with Nordic characters (germans also use Ü, but not Å). Native German type designer can use other trickery, but you are obviously not a German, so don't.

I don't know what rules apply if the glyphs will only be used in logos for US metal bands.

Also, your w looks heavy on the bottom (to much blackness there), and the blackness of Æ and Ø is not the same as in the other glyphs.

PS. As I read my post, I realised I sound was waay to negative, Your basic English characters already look better then in any font that have ever been shipped with MS Windows. I wouldn't even have bothered to comment on the bad parts if the font didn't look promising. Also Nordic ÄÖäö (but I'm uncertain if this is allowed for umlauts)can use dots that are not perfect squares or circles, I think your font would look really good with dots that are higher then they are wide, perhaps 2-5 times the height then the width (the Nordic dots are residues from a blackletter E rised above an blackletter A or O, you could say that Nordic Ä and Ö is "variations" of Æ and Œ, but with the E on top instead of at the side).