The aim of the study is clear and sound. Their protocol for study and results are explained in detail. The title is relevant and in a "what you see is what you get" manner. References are relevant, but some are significantly older. They are listed in the correct order. In a brief check, some recent and more relevant studies were available.

The general information provided is adequate. The last sentence of the first paragraph is written in an irrelevant style with the rest of the paragraph. Rephrasing would be more elegant. The aim of the study is well-defined. The given information and aim of the study are concordant with each other.

There is confusion in subject selection. Five groups, including eight rats in each, are taken into consideration. Also, there are five additional rats for deciding the hypotensive effect of hesperidin. Rephrasing and telling the exact number of rats in the study would be a better approach. Variables are described in detail. Methods chosen for the study are sound, valid and reliable. The methodology includes enough data for the replication of the study. Propylene glycol is defined as “vehicle” in the study. "Solvent" or "dissolving medium" may be a clearer definition.

Data presentation is somehow confusing. The numbers of subjects in groups and graphs are not described in detail. Some groups include 8, some 7, some 5 and some 4 rats. The presentation of tables and figures are confusing. Heart rate elevation is described for 30 mg Hesperidin group in text, there is a decrease in Table 1. Explanations under Table 2 and Figures 4 and 5 are not adequate. The $ sign is not explained. The numbers given in the text are appropriate. Titles are descriptive and labels are explanatory. Categories are grouped and explained in detail. The text adds to data and explains its context. Results are statistically significant but important results must be emphasized with bold letters. Also, an inspection by a native speaker is necessary. There are some distortions in meaning due to the improper use of language. (E.g. line 183: affected an elevation, line 197 must be rephrased, line 215: order of words requires rephrasing, line 230: punctuation error cause meaning distortion.) Paragraph of line 245 needs rephrasing. Did not the authors administer L-NAME and hesperidin or captopril simultaneously? The sentence needs rephrasing to emphasize simultaneous or subsequent administration.

The study is discussed thoroughly. Each important specification is discussed independently. There is no over-interpretation. Aim and conclusion are concordant. There are enough references. Conclusions would be supported with more results. There were not any fatal limitations. As hesperidin is in use for decades, human research may be planned.

The study was well-designed to achieve the goals of the study. Hesperidin is used for venous diseases. As a well-known venotonic agent, hesperidin’s effectiveness on heart and arteries are pointed. There were not any major flaws. The article was consistent with itself.

Arterioprotective effectiveness of hesperidins requires additional research on humans.

Minor points like figures/tables not being mentioned in the text, a missing reference, typos, and other Inconsistencies. 1. The data presented requires more attention for a clearer understanding. 2. Proofreading by a native speaker is essential. There is a significant amount of linguistic problems. Punctuation problems are evident.