The grading system works as such:

Name of story (preferably, this would also be the link to story in question)
Genre*
Wordcount (total)
Grammar: x/10
Characterization: x/10 (you can disregard if it's AU, but it's not an excuse for cardboard)
Use of show canon: x/10 (again, see above)
Plot consistency: x/10, minus .5 for each flaw or inconsistency
Use of OCs**: x/10, minus five for red-and-black alicorn OC's or overpowered in general.
Coherence: x/10 (how well story flows, how good plot is, how much it makes sense, etc)
Pacing***:x/10
Extra things depending on genre: x/10
*If the crossover material, should any be present, confuses you (i.e. you've never heard about it before), talk to the other contribs and mods about it to see if they have, by chance, heard of it too. If they have, talk to the mod(s) who know the material and ask them to do a co-review with you. Otherwise, points will be deducted from the overall score if the material hasn't crossed well with MLP. Also, if the story fails to live up to its intended genre (i.e. it's tagged dark but seems to have a rather slice-of-life feel to it), points will also be deducted.

**If OC in question makes the story work in some way, or is a believable character with flaws and other things that makes a character relate-able in some way, points will not be deducted. In other words, Mary Sues will automatically get deducted.

***Only for stories as least as long as 100k and with chapters ranging drastically in number, or for stories reaching or exceeding a limit of five scene transitions per chapter. This one's a bit of a special grade, solely up to reviewer discretion.

Touchy topics, if any are present:
Fomula works like this: (-x)2**
Rape: x/10
Foalcon: x/10
Pregnancy: x/5, up to x/10 if rushed beyond what biology would allow and x/15 if hyper or topic of abortion is present
Gore, death, mutilation/cannibalism: x/15, x/5 depending if singular or not
Zombie apocalypse/end-of-the-world-related shenanigans: x/10
Religion: x/10, drop to x/5 if it's just dogma without the worship
Terrorism/war-based shenanigans: x/10, down to x/5 if singular
Suicide: x/5, x/10 if more than one happens in a story
Anon/second-person/self-insert stories: x/15, x/5 depending if singular or not
Choose Your Own Adventure (CYOA)/comment-driven stories: x/10, drop to x/5 if it doesn't veer far off from established synopsis
Any fadfic, no exceptions: x/5, up to x/10 if it's one that turned into a skeleton of a dead horse
**If topic is portrayed in a realistic manner or otherwise handled exceptionally well/uses it to its advantage, disregard the (-x)2 altogether

Score needed to pass: 75%, will be bumped up to 80% by mod discretion as they see fit. Add up the points, then divide by possible total from all categories used (for instance, 55/80), and then convert it to a percentage. Voila, you have a grade. :) *Any and all negative scores that come up in a review are up to reviewer discretion.

3626239 Yay! My idea got approved.

3626264 With a few tweaks, of course.

3626285 True. One thing. The formula penalty confused me a bit. Could you elaborate?

3626399 (1+1)- pretty easy by itself. ^2-spared. 2*2-multiplication. A minus sign in front of anything usually means its negative. This is extra penalty formula basically.

3626429 I know that, but is the 1+1 the score from the total number of points or something else? Cause I don't see any x in the formula, so the penalty just looks like -4 points to me.

3626443 Oh, that. It's from the total number of points, but it's only applicable to touchy subjects.

3626461 Ah. Quick question. Each admin lists what they like on the front. When applying for reviewer spot, should they send it to you or the admin of the genre they like?

3626468 It's recommended, yes, but not required.

3626478 So they should send it to the admin of that corresponding genre, if they have a preferred?

3626486 Yes.

3626488 Got it.

3626490

3626499 We should probably list that on front page.

3626505 Indeed.

3626514 I'll add it to the page.

3626525 Thanks. ^^

No bonus or scoring for originality?

3626708 No sorry, just penalties for a lack therefore of.

3626728 Makes sense

3626732 I suppose if an admin likes something enough personally they might rereview it with a more generous eye.

3626429 Ok going back to your formula and trying to make some sense of it. Did you mean to put it as

-((2x)^2*2-4*) were x = the number of majorly offensive transgressions?

Aka in the case of a story that is foalcon but portrayed realistically:
-(2(1))^2*2-4)=-4

But in the case of a focalcon rape fadfic with no realism it would be:

-((2(3))^2*2)=-72

3627516 Yes, that.

3627530 Thanks. Nearly done my review of the story I accidentally moved to the rejected folder before posting a proper review of it.

3627536 Ah. Ok.

3627659 We should probably have a list of who's doing what. To avoid overlap

3630143 A thread for it or a google doc might work.

3630219 Indeed.

3626239 Out of curiosity, is the use of original characters a thing that would negatively impact the rating of the story? If so, is this truly fair? Not all original character detract from a story, in fact in some instances they can greatly add to it. I am not saying that my story is one such story, but the idea of lessening a score based on the inclusion of original characters hardly seems right.

3640236 Ah, that right there is a fair point. It's just that many OC's on this site (I am guilty of this as well) are, more often than not, Mary Sue cardboard material. I shall tweak the grading system accordingly.

3640244 Ha, I won't argue that. For every one good original character, there are dozens of bad ones that bury the good ones under a pile of junk. (Not the actual word I wanted to use, but you get my drift. )

3640251 Ikr? Good thing the grading system got a needed tweak.

3626239 looks great now with your alterations to oc's.

3641042

3641518 you should post in the staff intro thread if you've got time! :p

3641523 Will do.

3626239 If my math is right, these are the two variations of the formula, written somewhat less confusingly:
EDIT: Missed one of the weirder parts of the formula the first time. It's been corrected now.

you might be wondering why it's written as -(8x^2-4) instead of as -8x^2+4. that's just personal preference to be honest and is a holdover from how the formula was originally written

5645389 Ah. I think I'll use that next time, except without the square, IF I get another negative in the hundreds again.

5645719 Sounds reasonable.

5645912 Gonna add in THAT tidbit, for those few who the formula confounds.