CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

2002 WTA Madrid Open – Doubles

2002 tennis event results

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionMay 21, 2023
Entity authorityQ3842831 ↗
Source-derived summary

Virginia Ruano Pascual and Paola Suárez were the defending champions, but both players opted to focus only on the singles tournament. Ruano Pascual retired in her first round match, while Suárez reached the semifinals before losing to tournament champion Monica Seles.

Martina Navratilova and Natasha Zvereva won the title by defeating Rossana de los Ríos and Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 6–2, 6–3 in the final.

Editorial summary

“2002 WTA Madrid Open – Doubles” enters the record as 2002 tennis event results. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Madrid, Doubles and tennis can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current 64-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Madrid, Doubles and tennis.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“2002 WTA Madrid Open – Doubles” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Madrid, Doubles and tennis provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 21, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q3842831. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “2002 WTA Madrid Open – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2002 WTA Madrid Open – Doubles primary sources, 2002 WTA Madrid Open – Doubles archive and Madrid research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “2002 WTA Madrid Open – Doubles”?
  2. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
  3. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “2002 WTA Madrid Open – Doubles” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.