Hi all - I've listed this article for peer review because I have continually added 2000+ words to enhance this stub article. Since the original stub, It now includes a range of citations, images, an infobox and a navigation box. The upgrade of this stub was due to a university assignment, however I have found the topic particularly interesting therefore would love some feedback to further enhance this stub and possibly request a review of the articles class. It is currently at start article status. Any comments in reference to editing, re-arranging of subheadings, citations or anything in general would be very, very much appreciated. Thank you so much! I look forward to hearing from the Wikipedia community. Thanks, LMJ050100 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@{{u}LMJ050100}} thank you for your contributions to this article. I think it is overall written with a good standard of English that is easy to understand. I think that some elements could be improved. Firstly, the article meanders into tangents often. The primary topic is the organisation and that should be front and centre what's written. It was weird to start reading in depth about Israel and Palestine when those aren't the primary topic of the article. Things about political and other events leading up to its creation should be covered in the articles relating to those events - same goes for extensive details about the two "key contributors", that hagiographic information can be better contained in the article about those people. Other than that I think it is a reasonable article for Wikipedia. Much of the information in the article seems to be statements of intent or objectives rather than secondary coverage of their notability or impact which is probably more suitable for Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]