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

2009 Roma Open – Doubles

2009 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 revisionFeb 25, 2022
Entity authorityQ3940455 ↗
Source-derived summary

Flavio Cipolla and Simone Vagnozzi were the defenders of championship title, but Cipolla decided to not participate this year.

Vagnozzi chose to play with Leonardo Azzaro, however they lost to James Cerretani and Amir Hadad in the first round.

Simon Greul and Christopher Kas won in the final 4–6, 7–6(2), [10–2], against Johan Brunström and Jean-Julien Rojer.

Editorial summary

“2009 Roma Open – Doubles” enters the record as 2009 tennis event results. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Roma, Doubles and tennis can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA strong contextual entry point for chronology, institutions and public events when official records are distinguished from later interpretation. The current 57-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 Roma, Doubles and tennis.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“2009 Roma Open – Doubles” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Roma, Doubles and tennis provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 25, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q3940455. 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 source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. 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 “2009 Roma Open – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2009 Roma Open – Doubles primary sources, 2009 Roma Open – Doubles archive and Roma 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 “2009 Roma Open – Doubles”?
  2. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
  3. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “2009 Roma 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.