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.

	Repatriation tax avoidance has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 1, 2021 Peer review Reviewed March 8, 2022 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 10, 2022. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Merck & Co. avoided repatriation taxes totaling over $3 billion during its 2009 acquisition of Schering-Plough?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Business Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Economics Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Finance & Investment Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. JBchrch talk 03:27, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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. JBchrch talk 21:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. JBchrch talk 15:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]