# Talk:Repatriation tax avoidance

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)

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)
@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)
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)