Talk:2010 GP2 Series

Dani Clos edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think it is not sure that Clos will drive for Racing Engineering for the next season. His performance was very bad, so maybe Racing Engineering is not committed to give him a cockpit. Except this reference from the beginning of the 09 season, no media is talking about him driving in the next season.--Gamma127 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

For example: Kimi Räikkonen had a contract for season 2010, but despite rumors, he was remained in the table before the official confirmation Alonso. Cybervoron (talk) 19:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Räikkönen is a good example. So Clos should remain in the table.--Gamma127 (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

All cleared up now! Cs-wolves (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lede edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The 2010 GP2 Series season is the sixth GP2 Series season. This is also the first GP2 season that has its own feeder series, GP3. The 2010 GP3 Series season will be at most of European Formula One rounds with GP2. The German GP2 round will be returning to Hockenheim, due to its alternation with the Nürburgring as host of the German Grand Prix. Abu Dhabi becomes a part of the main series, after two races in the 2009–10 GP2 Asia Series. Five of the series' 2009 drivers have graduated into Formula One – champion Nico Hülkenberg, Vitaly Petrov, Lucas di Grassi, Kamui Kobayashi and Karun Chandhok. The 2010 season will be the last season with the second-generation GP2 car, introduced in 2008. It is thought that the chassis will be put into service in the next GP2 Asia Series.

Numerous problems with the article lead. The third sentence is about GP3, which is not covered by the scope of this article. The fact that five drivers from 2009 have graduated to Formula One is impressive, but has nothing to do with the 2010 season. There are thousands of racing drivers who aren't competing in this series, concentrate on the ones who are. Calendar changes are noteworthy but not important enough for the article lead. That needs to shifted down to the calendar section. Even if it's referenced, speculation is still speculation and should be deleted. If it is not speculation then don't write as it is thought.... Reading that it seems to suggest the most important drivers in the series are the drivers who aren't in it. Series points leader deserves a mention. --Falcadore (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This section still does not satisfy WP:LEAD. Any thoughts? --Falcadore (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Results table edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GP2 regulations state that FL point is awarded to the driver with fastest lap inside the top ten. Thus, Herck, even though he set ultimate fastest lap, did not receive point for FL. All GP2 season articles have utilised the FL point-receiver as FL - taken from a recent summary. This is a problem with the results table. Either the table is for displaying the driver whoscores the fastest lap, or it should be the driver who receives the fastest lap point. Either correct to table contents, the header contents, or delete the whole table and let the results matrix tell the story which it does anyway. Some of the tables are being loaded up with information beyond their scope and this illustrates why its a problem. Please fix. --Falcadore (talk) 15:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Driver changes edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

This section is very long and bullet-pointed for it's entire length. Surely this could be better handled in prose and end up with an end-product that looks like it was written by people rather than a spreadsheet? --Falcadore (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I think there is a time and a place for lists just as there is for prose. If a list makes the information more understandable and readable than a prose paragraph then a list is the correct method of presentation. Prose also has to be fluid and that is very difficult when its contents is essentially the same throughout - just a means of describing a list of driver changes. The listed/bullet point format is therefore much more appropriate in this instant for cases such as this. In effect, it is far too boring and repetitive to lay-out in prose style - the effect would be every sentence of similar structure telling the same thing but about a different driver. It is also far quicker to find a selected driver when put in an alphabetical list than it is if hidden in a forest of commas, connecting words and synonyms. It is no less valid or article-worthy in list format than if it was in prose. Don't use prose just for the sake of it. Officially Mr X (talk) 09:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's not a good idea. The list is really good. Officially Mr X's Opinion is absolutly right. Please do not delete this list. --Gamma127 (talk) 12:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not suggesting deletion. Did you read what the tag leads too? --Falcadore (talk) 13:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

So you only want an additional text and the list remain in the article? --Gamma127 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have a read of the guideline please. --Falcadore (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

No point for that in my opinion, unless you want to add details that could not be added in this format(like pre-seasons rumours for example, although this is probably not the best place for this anyway). And see, a section with prose would be quickly repetitive, you have to quote 15-20 driver changes(if not more) and will probably end up taking the same expressions endlessly. (OmerTheLion (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC))Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 2010 GP2 Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic