Repatriation tax avoidance (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 13 May 2022 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment
I don't want to open the peer review (and remove it from the list of non-reviewed articles) for this one comment, but I think it would really improve the article if you added the specific page numbers you are referencing, for instance through the use {{sfn}} refs. Since this is your first FAC, an editor will perform spot checks on your sources, and it will be much easier to find someone willing to do it if they have specific page numbers they can work with. JBchrchtalk03:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to take some reorganization, since the refs likely point to different pages depending on the facts they are being cited for. If this is more likely to help the reviewer, I'd be fine to reformat the citations. Is the sourcing requirement all that much stricter than that for GA? — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10 I'm not one of those serial GA/FA creators, so take what I say with a grain of salt (although I've been doing some source reviews at FAC), but AFAIK the differences in terms of sourcing are that the sources must be high-quality, there must be inline citations for all claims, and the formatting must be consistent (WP:FACR 1c and 2c). In my experience, however, the FAC process is much more open-ended than the GA process, so reviewers may only support your nomination if they feel like you've put in the most work possible to improve the article. JBchrchtalk21:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, one thing I forgot about FAC sourcing requirements is that the sources have to be representative of the literature that exists on the topic. JBchrchtalk15:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
