CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

2015 Connecticut Open – Doubles

2015 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 revisionJan 30, 2025
Entity authorityQ20862326 ↗
Source-derived summary

Andreja Klepač and Sílvia Soler Espinosa were the defending champions, but Soler Espinosa chose not to participate this year. Klepač played alongside Lara Arruabarrena, but lost in the first round to Chuang Chia-jung and Liang Chen.

Julia Görges and Lucie Hradecká won the title, beating Chuang and Liang in the final, 6-3, 6-1.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “2015 Connecticut Open – Doubles” as 2015 tennis event results. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Connecticut, Doubles and tennis.

Editorial reviewMost valuable as an event-and-institution map that identifies actors, dates and record creators for deeper historical inquiry. The current 53-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 value is orientation rather than verdict, with Connecticut, Doubles and tennis providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “2015 Connecticut Open – Doubles”, the useful work is to connect “2015 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 Jan 30, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q20862326. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. 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 “2015 Connecticut Open – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2015 Connecticut Open – Doubles primary sources, 2015 Connecticut Open – Doubles archive and Connecticut 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 “2015 Connecticut 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 “2015 Connecticut 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.