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 dont 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 Youve now just made a whole section of repeated data some of which weve only just put into the main body so youre 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 youre 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 Governmentopposition divide  likewise it is not so simple This hardly reflects the US system unless youre 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