1. The title is ambiguous and overly broad.

2. The abstract lacks scientific substance, leaving the reader uncertain about the problem studied and the methodology employed.

3. Keywords that are excessively lengthy or general in nature cannot be considered as true keywords.

4. The introduction begins with an exaggerated claim and digresses too far from the main topic.

5. The introduction fails to emphasize any novel aspects of the research.

6. Insufficient contextual information is provided in the introduction.

7. Inappropriate use of literature references in the introduction, with some instances requiring citations but lacking them.

8. The introduction lacks a clear structure and hierarchical organization.

9. The description of the experimental method is unclear and does not facilitate reproducibility.

10.The body of the article is excessively long and could easily be divided into multiple sections with appropriate subheadings.

11. The novelty of the results is not clearly articulated, as it only states that the findings differ from existing literature without providing specific details on how they differ.

12. The article lacks scientific rigor and originality, merely reiterating what has already been reported by others.

13. The article lacks insightful and unique perspectives, merely describing phenomena and presenting data without delving into theoretical depth.

14. The discussion section resembles the introduction, primarily consisting of a literature review rather than presenting original arguments.

15. The article fails to provide an objective analysis of the significance and limitations of its findings, as well as lacking future prospects.

16. Both the conclusion and abstract sections are identical in content.

17. There are numerous formatting errors present throughout the article.