Talk:Potteries derby

Potteries derby has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation 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.
Review: February 28, 2024. (Reviewed version).

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 January 2009. The result of the discussion was withdrawn.

Football: England Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Potteries derby appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 April 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that one Potteries derby game was decided by a goal scored twelve seconds into the match?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Potteries derby.

Wikipedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

True!--Echetus Xe 22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

No rush. Echetus Xe 16:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

-Thanks, I've looked at those.@The C of E: --Echetus Xe 00:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(

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.[reply]

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. Sounder Bruce 07:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sounder Bruce 02:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I've done that now. Thanks. Echetus Xe 08:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sounder Bruce 04:34, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. Echetus Xe 10:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. Sounder Bruce 04:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]