Comments on abstract, title, references

The aim of the work is clear and the title is suitable with content of research and the reference is good

Comments on introduction/background

When we move to the introduction we find that it is related to the topic where the most important topics that the research deals with have emerged and the researcher did not address the results or the quotation .

Comments on methodology

Most of the variables defined here were measured appropriately also enough details which can help the other researchers in their future works

Comments on data and results

These work found strong Anti-Bacterial Activities might be developed as a new type of antibacterial agents for the treatment of bacterial by synthesis new Schiff Bases Derivatives

Comments on discussion and conclusions

All tables and figures are relevant and clearly presented . The researcher presented the conclusion briefly and accurately

Structure my comments into a full review: Major points in the article which needs clarification, refinement, reanalysis, rewrites and/or additional information and suggestions for what could be done to improve the article.

1- In the general procedure for the synthesis of Schiff Bases, the author did not give reference explaining the methods ? [page 6854].

Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other inconsistencies.

1- In the Introduction[page 6851] after Reference ( 13) comes Reference (14) but the author was wrote Reference( 4), after reference( 4) he wrote reference (15) where is reference (14) ? 2-The author mentioned that the compounds(4.5) give good activity, but he did not put an image showing this activity (an image of the activity ), except for the table. [page 6853].