Face and mouth needs to be corrected, noose is too long. Horn is too far from center (it must be located right between the eyes. On your picture looks like it grow on the left ear's place). Another perspective problem - far wing (left). It don't make the same angle as the right wing do. Lower legs - incorrect size, proportions. They must be longer then they are (hips looks normally). Another perspective problem - head turned left. It's easier to draw, because in this case we may not draw second eye. But the aftermath is a incorrect horn, head's turning angle (and if you draw a picture with more, than one object, you may face, that characters talking (or anything else), but don't look each other.
It's all just my IMHO, and picture is still great!
But you have many things to learn :-P
I for one love this drawing,You have to really look at whats in front of you to realize that every artist is not 100% accurate with the show,But overall i think that if you take a closer look at this piece of art you will find that all of your critique is wrong and unfair,For example,her horn IS in the right place,Her horn grows from the center of her head NOT in between her eyes,Her wing are in alignment with each other,If you trace a line from the tip of each wing it aligns perfectly,Its all about perspective,And when in perspective everything is seen in a different angle,witch means that you see everything with a different eye view.
Also in a critique you need to mention good stuff about the art itself,witch in this case you did not, I tell you,if i don't have anything good to say about someones art,i don bother to downcast their art,I only like what i see,and this is one of those that i like.
Fact that it's just a coloring of some drawing don't make it all better, isn't it? - (Assuming I understand what you mean Yes, because you're in the wrong place to leave a critique addressing the issues you did.
In this case we can't talking about style, or anything else, because (as you say) it's just a coloring - I was addressing the critique as if you had left on the original, which is how you wrote it.
So you cannot find someone's style in ordinary template picture. You can draw non-canon cool pony, and you can draw "broken" pony. Feel the difference, bro. - ... What?
And third - I've told only about mistakes, because it's a critique, but in the end I called this picture great, - Critiques should speak of both what the author did right, and what they could do better. You went into massive detail as to why it's "bad", but you spent all of one sentence on the good. You contradict yourself, and in the end, it's unfair.
This critique is unfair for three reasons.
First, it's merely a coloring of an already excising drawing - not an entirely original piece. Therefor, all of your nitpicks are irrelevant, as they don't address the subject-matter of the deviation.
Secondly, all your critiques are based on the drawing not being 100% show-accurate, which is blatantly unfair, as show-accuracy is not the goal. You must understand that there are differences in everyone's styles, and that labeling variances from the show's as negatives in this manner is downright wrong.
And third, while you spoke lots of the "downsides" you see in the drawing, you made no mention of the good. Again, unfair.
Fact that it's just a coloring of some drawing don't make it all better, isn't it? Okay, lets think, that I critiqued the original picture
In this case we can't talking about style, or anything else, because (as you say) it's just a coloring. And I can say more - original picture is very formulaic, routine. So you cannot find someone's style in ordinary template picture. You can draw non-canon cool pony, and you can draw "broken" pony. Feel the difference, bro.
And third - I've told only about mistakes, because it's a critique, but in the end I called this picture great, as you can see