On July 31, 2020, we conducted an editorial in-depth review of the website for Kromann Reumert, a Danish corporate law firm. For this purpose, we collected a sample of 1 web page, approximately 3,200 words. Our findings were as follows:
To conduct a thorough and impartial editorial review, we held Kromann Reumert’s website up against the 11 quality parameters we have articulated for this purpose.
We found the home page visually appealing, but the first major link on the top navigation bar called “Your Industry” is puzzling. We are accustomed to seeing “Practice areas” and the like on legal websites. The link left us wondering what someone is to do in case one does not belong to any “industry” at all, like a private individual for example. On closer inspection, we understood that Kromann Reumert wish to describe their areas of specialization, but this approach did not readily tell us about all of the practice areas they cover. Hence, we made a proposed edit in the “Substance, sufficiency of information” category.
As far as the quality of Kromann Reumert’s writing, we like that their sentences and paragraphs tend to be concise and brief. The website is informative, and it seems well-structured in the sense that things come in a logical order.
From an editorial perspective, the website does not live up to its fancy design, nor does it seem befitting of “Denmark’s leading law firm.” We made multiple highlights and proposed multiple edits to address problems with grammar, punctuation, and wording – all of which reduce the website’s readability and thus its reader-friendliness. We found unsuitable expressions, awkwardly worded phrases, unclear sentences, redundant and/or repetitive text, and incomplete translations from Danish.
Additionally, we proposed edits to improve upon information that seems outdated or incomplete. But what primarily concerns us about Kromann Reumert’s website is its unsatisfactory readability.
All of these concerns can be resolved by following the highlights, explanations and proposed edits contained in the Webmaster’s Edition of this review.
|Quality parameter||Explanation||Proposed edits|
|Mechanics, grammar||For example, a phrase, sentence or paragraph may need revision so that it becomes grammatically correct.||19|
|Mechanics, punctuation||For example, punctuation within a sentence or between two sentences may need to change to ensure correctness and improved readability.||17+|
|Mechanics, spelling||For example, a word or phrase may require revision to ensure proper and consistent spelling.||–|
|Navigation||For example, a hyperlink may need to be updated or removed to ensure that all links work properly.||–|
|Readability, clarity||For example, a sentence or paragraph may need clarification to avoid uncertainty about its meaning.||4|
|Readability, economy||For example, a word, phrase or sentence can be streamlined by removing something that seems redundant or repetitive.||8|
|Readability, general||For example, a sentence or paragraph may need revision to make it easier to read.||1|
|Readability, wording||For example, some text can be made more natural-sounding by changing a word or by revising a phrase.||7|
|Substance, sufficiency of information||For example, certain important information should be added or made more visible.||2|
|Substance, value of information||For example, certain information or material may require revision or removal because it seems unhelpful to readers and/or the website owner.||4|
|Visual||For example, an element such as a banner or image may need to be moved, removed or resized because it obscures something else.||2|
|Proposed edits in total||64+|
The above is an expression of our opinion. Our findings, reflections, and proposed edits are based upon our careful evaluation of a website. Our in-depth Editorial Website Report will be made available to the website owner free of charge for evaluation purposes, upon request.