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

2011 BMW Open – Singles

2011 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 revisionNov 8, 2022
Entity authorityQ3632089 ↗
Source-derived summary

Mikhail Youzhny was the defending champion, but lost to Philipp Petzschner in the second round.

7th seed Nikolay Davydenko defeated 5th seed Florian Mayer in the final 6–3, 3–6, 6–1 to win the title. It was Davydenko's first title since January 2010, and his 21st career title.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “2011 BMW Open – Singles” as 2011 tennis event results. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Singles, tennis and event.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2010—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Singles, tennis and event providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “2011 BMW Open – Singles”, the useful work is to connect “2011 tennis event results” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

Evidence profile

The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Nov 8, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q3632089. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2010.

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 “2011 BMW Open – Singles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2011 BMW Open – Singles primary sources, 2011 BMW Open – Singles archive and Singles 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 “2011 BMW Open – Singles”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  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 “2011 BMW Open – Singles” 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.