I think you'll find what you're looking for in Nichomachean Ethics, Book II, chap. 5, ff. Or all of Book II. Here (for example):
https://www.stmarys-ca.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/files/Nicomachean_Ethics_0.pdf

Well, it makes sense to me
Assuming that the middle ground between the extremes is virtue for pottery.
A virtuous person must also be virtuous in pottery, so he must stay at the middle ground to be virtuous.
If he needs to be at the middle to be virtuous at pottery then be extension he will need to be virtuous in any art like pottery. Therefore all arts like pottery require a person to follow the middle path to be virtuous.
Now to me it seems natural that if all arts like pottery require a virtuous person to tread the middle path then that virtuous person must tread the middle path to be virtuous.
A virtuous would not have needed to practice pottery for years to be called virtuous in the art, if he did then he wouldn't or rather he couldn't be a virtuous person. So whatever way that virtuous person decides to follow to be virtuous in pottery must be what he does for anything else and not specifically for it and since we know that to be virtuous in pottery we must tread the middle path therefore we also know that a virtuous person decides to follow the middle path to me virtuous in pottery like he does in anything else. Therefore virtue is the middle path.

What kind of logic is this? — Ioannis Kritikos

This is three-valued logic with the middle ground being everything and anything between the recognized and named extremes. This example is a fascinating contrast to Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction which rules out the possibility of any middle way.

Aristotle,trying to show virtue is a middle way, said
1.In decorative arts such as pottery one seeks to stay in the middle ground between extremes
2.Since virtue superior to pottery etc. that must also be true for virtue too
3.therefore virtue is a middle way between extremes — Ioannis Kritikos

It's a bit more complicated than this. He gives examples such as eating, the correct amount being the mean between too much and too little, and courage, being the mean between cowardly and rash. So it's an argument from examples.

I like to call Aristotle's notion of the golden mean Too Logic Of The Golden Mean. Whatever else the word "too" means, it carries a distinctly negative connotation of both deficit (too less) and surplus (too much).

However, Aristotle's Golden Mean, if applied reflexively to itself means there's such a thing as too Golden Meanish. Go figure!

However, Aristotle's Golden Mean, if applied reflexively to itself means there's such a thing as too Golden Meanish. Go figure! — TheMadFool

Please explain what you mean. I don't understand.

Please explain what you mean. I don't understand. — I love Chom-choms

Too much of everything is bad.

Ergo,

Too much of too much of everything is bad is bad too.

But I don't think that Aristotle meant that too much of everything is bad. If he meant that that he is stupid but we know that he is not stupid.
He probably meant that as one gets farther from the right way , they approach the extremes. So the rights way or the truth is not bad even if it is too much because the that statement doesn't apply to truth.
Same as how in Buddhism, the law of impermanence doesn't apply to the Noble Truths. If they did then Buddha's philosophy would not hold.

But I don't think that Aristotle meant that too much of everything is bad. If he meant that that he is stupid but we know that he is not stupid.
He probably meant that as one gets farther from the right way , they approach the extremes. So the rights way or the truth is not bad even if it is too much because the that statement doesn't apply to truth.
Same as how in Buddhism, the law of impermanence doesn't apply to the Noble Truths. If they did then Buddha's philosophy would not hold. — I love Chom-choms

See Paradox Of Self-reference.