which have been presented by Haralick (1979).
=>
which was proposed by Haralick (1979)

section 1.2 preceds two  1.1


At the feature works
+ as future works

the format of reference should be organaized neatly


Though the approach seems not so bad, presentation is very poor. First, the authors should carefully proofread before submission. The paper is as if it were before proofread. For example, Section 1.2 precedes two Sections 1.1. Or, "at the feature works" should be "as future works." Furthermore, considering authors' not very good English writing capability, the authors should avoid too complicated expression. E.g., "which have been presented by Haralick" might be better like "which was proposed by Haralick."

The authors claim to propose NEW algorithm, but most papers in the Reference list are too old to claim so, except for two. The authors should describe a good history continuously of development of this technique. Then probably, should conclude the history, like "See (Rachidi 2008) for more details."

Also citation for "the method using Wavelet" is very poor. It must be the most important part to describe "How the Wavelet transform is successfully applied to texture recognition, and how the authors' proposition is different from those proposed so far, thus how the proposition is unique. The reviewer does not find such description in the paper.

The format of Reference should be more well-organized.

The experimental data to verify the authors proposal is also poor.

So, the reviewer wants to encourage the authors to improve the submission more and more from the above mentioned point of view, expecting a good camera-ready version.