For a start, each weapon gets, by default, a 1 on my rating scale. That's the minimum a weapon gets, after all, and don't expect many weapons to receive more than that. Points can then be added through a variety of factors afterwards:

Accessibility can net the weapon up to 4 points. Is it affordable for what it does? Is it easy to come across? Can you get it through events or dailies? If so, it'll get a lot of points here. Note that weapons that are outclassed will have a lower ranking here, and weapons that fail to meet the quality level for any kind of viability will have this section skipped entirely.

After that is the viability section, which can net the weapon up to five more points. This is the most important section of the review. How good is the weapon on its own? How does it compare to similar options? Does it offer something unique? Weapons that have high values in their roles, or offer a completely unique function, will have a high amount of points granted here.

Lastly is the bonus points section. I'll give a weapon an extra two or three points if I so desire, such as if I like the particular weapon, or if it has an interesting story to tell in the history of the Battledome. I'll mostly give this to weapons that are terrible and wouldn't have a high rating anyway, as I don't think a little extra would be too detrimental to the battlepedia; 2 and 3 are still red numbers, which is codeword for "never ever use this weapon", after all.

One more thing to note is that I'll solely be looking at weapons through the lens of a 1 player battling stance, as that's my primary way of playing BD, and what I feel is the only mode most players deal with anyway. Weapons meant to work under the rules of 2 player Battledome will be given a harsh review, even if they're viable in that context.