The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn. Needs more entries to globalize the list, per advice below. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the article passes the various Featured list criteria. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, see User:The Rambling Man/FLC things to check for a list of basic checks you need to make. And presumably this list isn't exhaustive, for instance I cannot see Corsodyl... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, list is very English speaking-centric and does not include many brands I'm personally familiar with in New Zealand and Japan (Macleans, Pearl Drops, Steradent, White Glo, Red Seal, Paradontax in New Zealand, and Clinica, Xylident, Sunstar's G.U.M. and other toothpaste brands, Kao's Pyuora toothpaste, etc in Japan). I assume many Korean, African, Chinese South American and other brands have been left off as well. If the list isn't meant to be exhaustive, maybe you could break it down into List of North American toothpaste brands, List of European toothpaste brands to make the project a bit more manageable. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from nominator - (ping User:Prosperosity): This list is limited in scope to notable toothpaste brands that have Wikipedia articles. Entries can be added that are verified but without Wikipedia articles. However, adding new entries that are not verified would likely violate point #3 of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. How does this article fail the Featured list criteria? User:The Rambling Man: what specific parts of your treatise should this article comply to? NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of it. Read it and find out. Let's start with an easy one, "Don't start with "This is a list of"... It isn't engaging writing and it's been discouraged for months now." And no, red links are allowed, as are unlinked items. Finally, there are dozens of brands I can buy on Amazon today, why are they not notable? I see you've linked one item to the German Wikipedia (Chlorodont), so presumably you're checking the other Wikipedias for similarly locally notable toothpastes? I also see items listed that aren't actually toothpaste, e.g. Lion Corporation, what's the deal there? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:The Rambling Man: Lion Corporation link removed. Regarding topic notability, I base it upon WP:N, a brand having received significant coverage in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list makes no point of defining why a toothpaste would make the list, and why it wouldn't. Obviously there would be ones that shouldn't make the list (e.g. a small company that sells 500 tubes in a year), but there should be some sort of parameter defining the list. Purely having a Wikipedia page is not a great measure, as a type of toothpaste may be notable enough to receive a page, just nobody has written it yet. Although it's good to add brands with pages on other international Wiki projects (as they're apparently notable enough in those regions), using the existence or non-existence of a brand just because it has a page is an issue. There might be an extremely important Lithuanian toothpaste, but not necessarily a Wikipedia page about it on the Lithuanian language Wiki. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although if having a Wikipedia page is what your definition of the list is, when I check the Japanese wiki oral healthcare category, there are pages for Clearclean, Clinica, Pyuora, Concool Repario, Deepclean, the Sunstar company, Dentor, Denthealth and Platius. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have withdrawn the nomination. User:Prosperosity: thanks for the links, which I have added to the article. I have also copy edited the lead to state that the list contains notable brands of toothpaste as an inclusion criteria, as per Wikipedia's definition of topic notability. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Giants2008 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list presents full ichthyofauna of the North Sea. The list includes illustrartions, indicate the conservation status of species by IUCN's criteria, also classified fishes by their origin. It might be very useful for specialists, also for all persons who interest on fish fauna. Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - quite a few problems here I'm afraid:

Lead is effectively two sentences and essentially provides no context, check out some existing FLs for the kind of lead which is expected

Lead image has no caption

Not explained why some values in the "taxa authority" column are in brackets and others not

"Sources" heading is spelt wrong

Fishbase link (seemingly being used as a source, although it's not specified what it is sourcing) doesn't work

It really isn't clear what is actually referencing anything in the table

Lots of work to do here, I'm afraid........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note, the brackets are correct and are convention that actually contain information. They mean that the person(s) that originally described the species placed it in a different taxonomic group. It would be odd to have to explain that in the thousands upon thousands of species pages, genus pages, family pages, list of species pages, list of genera pages... etc. I do agree the other issues. Mattximus (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That probably ought to be explained in that case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, basically agree with everything ChrisTheDude said, none of which has been rectified in the almost two weeks since his comment. The lead and referencing are the two biggest issues, in my mind, and typos in the headers simply show that care was not taken to buff the article to meet FL criteria before bringing it to FLC. Overall, I don't think it would take more than a couple hours of work to buff up the article (assuming that all of the relevant fish species are indeed listed and listed properly), but that work is obviously not being done. Dana boomer (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 07:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Nominator(s): Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked really hard to expand the article to this status. It meets all criteria described in WP:WIAFL. The only things that may be of concern is a) the recent content dispute (now resolved through consensus) and b) the statistics may change during the season, but only for the few players on this list who are active and for this type of list, it does not majorly affect the status of the list (see for example List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples). Thanks for your consideration of this FLC. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments / Suggestions

• The caption in the lead image doesn't need a period, as it isn't a full sentence
• Why is "stolen bases" italicized? I don't think it needs to be.
• "delivering the ball" - this sounds a little funny.. "throwing the ball" would probably sound better.. or anything else that doesn't make it sound like he's dropping it off like a pizza at someone's front door
• "than on the home run." --> "than on home runs"
• "Rickey Henderson holds the MLB career stolen base record with 1,406, and is the only player in MLB history with more than 1,000 stolen bases." - a few repetitive phrases.. MLB and stolen bases are repeated twice and if that could be avoided, it would read a little nicer. Perhaps, "Rickey Henderson holds the MLB career stolen base record with 1,406, and is the only player in the league's history with more than 1,000."
• "Juan Pierre is the current active leader with 614 stolen bases. Pierre is also the only currently active player to have more than 500 stolen bases." --> "Juan Pierre is the current active leader with 614 stolen bases; he is also the only currently active player to have more than 500 stolen bases."
• The table needs a caption (see MOS:DTT)
• For the members of the hall of fame, perhaps you could add a color in addition to the symbol, to make it stand out and not blend in with the other text.*
• The image caption "Ty Cobb steals third base during a game on July 23, 1910." - this is a very awkward sentence.. perhaps change "steals" to "stealing" and remove the period at the end
• See also section in alphabetical order would be nice
• The alt text on the images (not including the lead image) should be more descriptive. Instead of repeating the image caption in a shorter version, it should describe what the reader would see in the image. So instead of "Person X doing Y" it should say something along the lines of "Person X wearing a baseball uniform standing in the outfield looking towards centerfield."

• My biggest issue with the list is that all four columns are right next to each other. I believe this is a good way to save space, but I think having the entire list in one long column would look better and be less confusing. Though I'd be interest to know if this has already been discussed... and if not, what other editors think about it. In English, we tend to leave from top to bottom and left to right. So my eyes went straight from #1 to #41 to #81 and so on.

• Regardless of if this change is made, the players names should be in a highlighted cell. The change would be made by changing "| Rickey Henderson" to "! Rickey Henderson"
• Scope cols and rows should be added to the formatting per MOS:ACCESS, I believe.

Some of these comments are suggestions, and if you feel the suggested change isn't necessary or beneficial, feel free to skip past it but please just let me know why. :) Gloss • talk 04:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, it's usually best to have the statistics updated through the previous season. And at the end of this season, the numbers could be updated again. So I think it'd be best if you removed the "2014 SBs" - it's best to not have information on the page that needs to be updated daily. It's like how we generally don't add players stats to their biographies until the end of the season. Gloss • talk 13:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have fixed everything @Gloss:. I plan to add a few more images to the main stack and fix the alternate captions, but otherwise this is good to go. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• More images would help. And to go off of Bagumba's comment about the bolded names... you didn't get to the scope cols and rows. This is what needs to be added to every row. Gloss • talk 02:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You also missed one more comment, about the table captions. I crossed out everything completed. Gloss • talk 02:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All has been fixed now with regards to your comments. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You still haven't gotten to the two comments above? I crossed out everything you did do, and there are still things not done. The table caption... scope cols and rows.. Gloss • talk 18:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a few issues remain from my comments and I do share some of the concerns from the comments below. I also have concerns over a featured list being one that is updated daily as statistics from 2014 are added throughout the season. Gloss • talk 22:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comments: In the # column, instead of having blank cells when multiple players share a spot, add rowspans. Gloss • talk 18:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, if you're going to have the table sortable, the names in the table will all have to be put into a sortname template: For example {{sortname|First|Last}} and if the name of their article is something other than simply their first and last name, do {{sortname|First|Last|Article name}}
• The numbers will all need to be put into a sort template: See Template:Sort. Gloss • talk 18:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you do that? You seem to know how to do it, whereas I do not know how. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well given this is your nomination, what better time to learn how? Check out Template:Sort and Template:Sortname - I promise, it's not too hard. The rowspans, I'll take care of, as that doesn't take too much time. Gloss • talk 01:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bagumba

1. The lead notes players in the dead-ball era had more stolen bases, but the list doesn't show the years a player was active, like in 3,000 hit club.
2. Unlike existing Baseball FL's, this cutoff here of 300 SBs seems a bit arbitrary. While there was an improvement to pare it from top-500 players to players with 300 SBs, I'm not comfortable with making this an FL yet. I'm sure a SB leader list is notable, just not convinced it's 300 SBs. Tangible improvements can be made in the lead of the article. The text is cited with sources that do not even discuss players with 300 SBs. I'd be more convinced this grouping was notable and meets WP:LISTN if the lead had more information about the group from prose in WP:SECONDARY sources, not from stats sites which are more like WP:PRIMARY sources.
3. The current version unnecessarily bolds the name of each player, even though it says only active players are in bold.

—Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Number 3 has been fixed. Number 2, well is complicated. Then you have to question other featured lists like 100 triples. Why not 250 or 300? Arguments could be made in too many directions about that. With number 1, not all FL's have that and it would certainly be a lot of work (it's why individual refs may have helped) to add all of the years, etc. Other than that, this FLC should be FL material, I think. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 16:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   For No. 2, We are not reviewing the 100 triples article here. In any event, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the strongest of arguments. I would expect the cutoff in any stats listing to be notable, especially for an FL, and enough significant coverage in sources about that cutoff to use directly to write a paragraph or a few sentences about the group. For No. 1, there is WP:NODEADLINE, so the fact that "a lot of work" is required is not a reason to not include it. Other career baseball FLs like 300 win club, 500 home run club, 3,000 strikeout club, etc. also include the span of players' careers.—Bagumba (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, I found a few additional external sources and what not that again re-emphasizes its notability. Another example is the 300-300 club on Baseball Reference. I will get to the years stuff in the next week or so. Otherwise, if any concerns remain beyond that, let me know. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   B-R bullpen is another wiki, so wouldnt be a reliable source.—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not seeing progress. 300 is an arbitrary cutoff. WP:LISTN should be demonstrated with prose from WP:SECONDARY sources, not from stats sites which are more like WP:PRIMARY sources.—Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am making progress; slowly, but I am. RL has kept me busy, but I am making improvements. I can go find more secondary sources, but a lot of sources/leaderboards (primary and secondary) use 300 stolen bases as a board, so saying it's arbitrary is debatable. And with sources, again, I'll go find some. Thanks. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC) [4]].[reply]

Nominator(s): —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it complies with the FL criteria. I modeled the article after another FL (List of US cities by population), and I feel this article is even a bit more in depth that the one mentioned. It is a short article with few references, but I believe it still shows great work. I appreciate all in advance who take the time to review the article. —Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 20:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a good list. Good luck the balance of the way. Hwy43 (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Hwy43. I appreciate everything you have done to help improve this article.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 14:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Would prefer the photographs to be right justified along the side of the table to remove some of the white space. Ideally in the order of the list itself. Mattximus (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed the gallery and placed it in the table area.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 13:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Embedding the photos within the table creates excessive blank space within each row. I'd rather see them outside the table to the right, and I don't think we need photos for every city either. Perhaps just the ten largest. Hwy43 (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will have to agree. Mattximus (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to disagree. For someone like me who has a small screen for my computer, placing the images on the side of the tables makes the images go very far down the page, extending past the references. It looks much cleaner IMO either in the table or as a gallery as it was before.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 19:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • It appears you've revisited this. Your top five cities multiple image treatment looks great. Hwy43 (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you. I do have to agree, it makes the table much cleaner.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Pictures are much better now, but I'm not sure that graph is very meaningful. In fact, giving a city of 10,000 the same weight as a city of 1,000,000 is misleading. I would remove it in favour of a map, which is pretty necessary for a page like this and would convey the same information. Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am attempting to make a map, however a few cities near the same area, which causes an overlap. Is there any advice for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Jester (talk • contribs)

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Almost ready to support, but just curious why there isn't info from prior census years? — Cirt (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate on this?—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 04:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. 2001 Bolivian census states this was the tenth (10th) census of Bolivia. So why is there not info from the previous nine (9) census compilations? — Cirt (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is info on the 2012 and 2001 census. The only other census in which the data on cities is public is the 1992 census. I can add this to the article, if you want.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just thought I'd pipe in that all the recent successful list of municipality FLCs have had only the two most recent census counts. Hwy43 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's nice. But it seems like WP:RECENTISM and we shouldn't exhibit that as a model for featured quality pages -- especially when looking at WP:WIAFL: Point 3. Comprehensiveness. You see what I mean? — Cirt (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Also, it would be nice just as a sidenote, if someone were to create at the very least a nice sourced stub for 1992 Bolivian census. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • If a source is readily available to add a 1992 census population column, I suggest resisting the temptation of including a "Change" column that directly compares the 1992 and 2012 populations. The boundaries of cities between 2012 and 2001 may be different, while there may be further differences between the boundaries of the same between 2001 and 1992. If there was a boundary change between 2012 and 2001, the figure in the current "Change" column may not actually reflect true change within current boundaries. This risk would be compounded if there were different city boundaries for all three years.

                This is why statistics agencies (US Census Bureau, Statistics Canada, etc.) often only compare current census' counts with the most recent census' counts in its tables, adjusting the counts of the latter where intercensal boundary adjustments have occurred to reflect true changes. This is why most tables in Wikipedia follow suit.

                If this is confusing, see List of census agglomerations in Alberta where counts from the last four censuses are presented, with various notes associated with certain counts from 1996, 2001 and 2006. No change columns are presented as some entries have one, two or three intercensal boundary adjustments within the 20-year timeframe.

                Does this help to understand how the pursuit of comprehensiveness to avoid a perception of recentism can result in unintended factual errors? Hwy43 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

                • I have created an article on the 1992 census. Also, information relating to city population is readily available, if you want I can add it.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, it would be most helpful if you would, — Cirt (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Okay, I will have it completed by tomorrow night.—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 22:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this nomination? The 1992 census was not added as promised about one month ago. Why are you creating articles consisting of one sentence and a small table? Could you not merge it to this list? Regards. --Tomcat (7) 15:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment: This list has been archived. Please wait for at least two weeks before renominating. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Crisco 1492 10:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC) [5]].[reply]

Nominator(s): Simon (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously it was a part of Christina Aguilera discography, then I re-created it as a separate list. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that this list meets the criteria for a FL. Simon (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

• Please include alt. text for the three pictures.

• Done — Simon (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a couple shady links that need corrections.

• Not Done: The links are indicated as "registration issue" but still good links though — Simon (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you make the "Video albums" section sortable by title like the other sections?

• Done — Simon (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I see some instances of inconsistent use of Prometheus Global Media or Nielsen Business Media as the publisher for Billboard. I recommend that you pick one to stick with, preferably Prometheus Global Media.

• Done. I have fixed to Nielsen Business Media per Google Books — Simon (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd also recommend organizing the references in columns of three instead of two as they currently are.

• Done — Simon (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does Aguilera have an IMDb profile? Is that worth including under the "External links" section?

• Done. Thank you so much for your comments — Simon (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiRedactor (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, nicely done! WikiRedactor (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very nicely formatted. Looks better after the successful changes addressing comments from WikiRedactor, above. Well sourced throughout. Good job, — Cirt (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't love the lead, but I'm gonna focus my comments on the tables.
• Names need to be sorted by last name using {{sortname}}.

• Done — Simon (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As it is a sortable table, each director, album, etc. need to be linked.

• Done — Simon (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Christina Aguilera is an other performer on "Say Something"?

• Done — Simon (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is There Anybody Out There? needs to be linked.

• Done — Simon (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Should add some type of note that "Genio Atrapado" is Spanish version of "Genie in a Bottle" (same with the other translations).
• The sorting of the video albums table is not appropriate. For example, I can't properly sort the US peak positions.
• Remove Christina Aguilera discography as a see also per WP:SEEALSO.

— Status (talk · contribs) 15:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "33 music videos, four video albums, and four film appearances." - be consistent with ordinal numbers (WP:ORDINAL)
• "In 1999, Aguilera rose to fame with her self-titled debut album with four hits: "Genie in a Bottle", "What a Girl Wants", "I Turn to You" and "Come On Over Baby (All I Want Is You)", all of them have their music videos." - waffly and poorly written
• "In 2001, Aguilera was featured on the music clip for "Lady Marmalade" with Mýa, Lil' Kim and Pink, garnering two MTV Video Music Awards at the 2001 ceremony, Video of the Year[2] and Best Video from a Film.[3]" - it's not apparent that the two parts of this sentence are related. Try 'garnering'→'which received'.
• Please reread the lead for flow. It is quite awkward and certainly doesn't meet the "professional standards" required by WP:WIAFL.
• In sortable tables, people should be listed so that when sorted, they will be sorted by surname (using {{sortname}}). A similar case is "The Voice Within" (should sort be 'V', not 'T').

Some reasonably significant work needed, so I will oppose for now. Adabow (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will address your comments within a week. Honestly I am currently extremely busy with my homework so please bear with me — Simon (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.