`  :It is about maintaining the overall quality. Yes it is sourced but the data is already there in proper ordered sections and following the rules of English grammar. I don't like to mice words, so although the source is good the way it is presented and the manner of its inclusion is a complete mess. There is repetition of the rest of the article that gives an indication, be it true or false, that you are including data without reading what is in the article already or respecting its structure. You've now just made a whole section of repeated data, some of which we've only just put into the main body so you're repeating the data you just got included. To expand upon my comments in the edit summery; * ``extensive role of committees`` - this means nothing. In all parliaments the real action happens in committees and there is no grounding for the assertion here. Such info should be under committees anyway - the way it is put in like this is like you're construction an argument totally independent of this article but sharing its same file space. * ``bipartisan voting``. If you mean, voting politically then that is hardly an innovation for a parliament while at the same time it conflicts with the consensus idea. This issue is dealt with in detail and the point you put in conflicts with the more nuanced discussion of it. * ``absence of Government-opposition divide`` - likewise, it is not so simple. This hardly reflects the US system unless you're talking about parliamentary systems in which case it should be stated as such. As with the above this is gone into nuanced detail on the two sides of the theory here. A one sided assertion on this topic conflicts with that. :Basically, I am trying to protect the integrity of the information of this article by ensuring consistency and quality. -  `