General criteria for evaluating your presentation:
The criteria for evaluating your public presentation will include the quality of your thesis (must be clear in substance and definitions, introduced early, specific, and consistently defended); the quality of your evidence (must be thesis-related, rich, and truthful); the ability to address a counter-argument, or objection to your argument; and the ability to deliver all your points in a convincing and attractive format (style). That is accomplished by a clear structure of the talk, visual aid, fluency of the language, and a commanding manner of a speaker (energy and confidence of voice).
General structure and timing of the talk:
Introduction should make three points: it should briefly introduce your subject and its significance, your thesis, and orient the reader regarding your way of proceeding. A good introduction is short and able to grabs the audience attention from the first sentence (think about a opening that is catchy and to the point).
Introduce your thesis by defining your perspective (Westernism vs. Traditionalism), key used concepts and the relations between them. Specify how the thesis chosen relates to evidence.
You are arguing here as well, only this time on empirical rather than theoretical level. Relate your evidence to your thesis and report them one by one. Explain why these are the best evidence you could possibly find. Depending on the choice of evidence, they can be presented in a number of different ways, but they must be tied to your thesis and definitions.
This is where you complete your argument by addressing possible objections. You shouldnt have trouble identifying objections; depending on your thesis choice, it would be either the book you review or its opposing perspective(s). Explain your choice. Then, address these objections theoretically and empirically. This is a place to justify your choice of your thesis and to show how the alternative explanations are wrong or not sufficient in answering your question.
Here, you do two things. First, you summarize your argument and your findings, I have argued Second, you conclude, or specify what your analysis implies. Why is your solution important for the world? Can your answer help to solve an important policy issue? Can it be extended to regions/cases outside the one that you explicitly addressed in this paper? Be careful here; a typical error is to conclude what doesnt follow from the analysis at all. Do not overstate your findings, but dont sell yourself short too!
Other general suggestions:
Best of luck!