Talk:Potteries derby

Graph

There is already a Stoke City season-by-season graph, if a Port Vale graph is created I would think it would be good to combine them and put them on this article to show the teams positions relative to each other.--EchetusXe (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

City size

P.S Stoke is most definatley not larger than Nottingham —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.138.24 (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

True!--EchetusXe 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Potteries derby/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 08:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I will review this. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, real life stuff getting in the way, I'll try to get it done on the weekend. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No rush. EchetusXe 16:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• What's the need for the mention of Crewe in the opening paragraph?
  • Removed.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• "said to have been formed in 1876", Said by whom?
  • By themselves, have amended.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Vale were complete unknowns", why?
  • They were a minor team that hadn't received any coverage before that.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• More detail needed about that court case
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• "annual Stoke v Vale", vs
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Why were Vale forced to reapply?
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• It needs to be clarified that the Britannia Stadium and Bet365 Stadium are the same
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• "trashed the away end at Vale Park", formalise the language
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Dave Brammer also turned out for Crewe Alexandra after being controversially sold to Crewe", 1, WP:OLINK for Crewe already being linked earlier. And 2, why was it controversial?
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Why are we mentioning the rivalry with Crewe in the players for both clubs section?
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • No need to highlight in purple if you're removing the Crewe reference above
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• WP:OLINK on John Rudge
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Source 2, publisher title shouldn't be italicised as its not a print source and shouldn't be a bare web address
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Same as above for all non-print sources
  • Think I've done that.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Source 36, publisher title needs spacing
  • Same for 105
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Source 107 needs an access date.
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Source 111, needs a proper title and has a bare address as a publisher
  • Done.--EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

@EchetusXe: It looks in pretty good shape. Just need those issues pointed out fixed, then please ping me and I'll have another look. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

-Thanks, I've looked at those.@The C of E: --EchetusXe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• • Then I am happy to say you have a new GA. Well done @EchetusXe:! The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton talk 00:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that a patch of mud was a deciding factor in one Potteries derby football match? Source: Bullock, Liam (2023). El Ceramico: The Story of the Potteries Derby. Pitch. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-80150-393-8.
  • ALT1: ... that one Potteries derby game was decided by a goal scored in the opening 12 seconds of the match? Source: Bullock, Liam (2023). El Ceramico: The Story of the Potteries Derby. Pitch. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-80150-393-8.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Andreas Kieber

Improved to Good Article status by EchetusXe (talk). Self-nominated at 14:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Potteries derby; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems: - Some of the wording sounds far too much like what a stereotypical sportswriter would write, rather than written in an encyclopedic tone. Examples include "derby saga", "did Vale no favours", "Stoke boss Guðjón Þórðarson had his eyes on promotion", etc.

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: AGF on offline sources; ALT1 is the easier one to cite (presumably), but needs its citation moved to the same sentence to comply with DYK guidelines. SounderBruce 07:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean "needs its citation moved to the same sentence"? EchetusXe 12:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this was removed from the DYK guidelines somewhat recently. Normally hooks in the prose had to have a citation placed as closely as possible to make it easier to verify. I can approve this once some copyediting is done. SounderBruce 02:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay I've done that now. Thanks. EchetusXe 08:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The last sentence of the "Keeping apart" section needs major rewriting, and some more problematic phrases remain, such as "scrappy piece of play" and "facing a ducking in the River Trent". The tone is just not befitting of the wider project. SounderBruce 04:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that last sentence as the incident didn't have any lasting significance. I've reworded "facing a ducking". I have kept "scrappy piece of play" in. It seems there is a slight difference in the definition of the word scrappy in American English and British English, but the article is written in British English so the word scrappy is perfectly suitable to the tone of the project. EchetusXe 10:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Is this approved or are there other concerns with this article? Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see the update in my watchlist. I guess "scrappy" should be fine in this context, and the article's casual language has been toned down. Approved. SounderBruce 04:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)