Not sure how the populations have been computed here, but Newcastle upon Tyne is usually reckoned to be either the 6th largest city in the UK (by metro area) or the 8th largest (by conurbation). It's certainly a significantly larger place than Stoke. Likewise Manchester which here is shown as having about same population as Stoke. That's simply not the case: Manchester is one of the UK's largest cities and Stoke isn't. Perhaps for some of these cities you were going strictly by inner-city population, but that can be really misleading.
I would say City Proper figures? Birmingham and Manchester look roughly right by that and Newcastle is only 302k and so is plausibly not on here. All three are considerably smaller by this measure rather than others like urban area.
But that is only right for some of these figures. eg Sunderland, even using the city proper figures that include Washington, rather than just the smaller urban area, is just 277k - smaller than Newcastle.
And London proper is about a thousandth of its urban area/county/regional population (which is not as small as 7.5 million - more like 9 million, with a 14 million metro area, and a 9k city proper population).
I conclude that these figures are very strange indeed!
But that is only right for some of these figures. eg Sunderland, even using the city proper figures that include Washington, rather than just the smaller urban area, is just 277k - smaller than Newcastle.
And London proper is about a thousandth of its urban area/county/regional population (which is not as small as 7.5 million - more like 9 million, with a 14 million metro area, and a 9k city proper population).
I conclude that these figures are very strange indeed!