CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

2016 Bank of the West Classic – Doubles

2016 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 authorityQ25927323 ↗
Source-derived summary

Xu Yifan and Zheng Saisai were the defending champions, but lost in the quarterfinals to Johanna Konta and Maria Sanchez.

Raquel Atawo and Abigail Spears won the title for the second time, defeating Darija Jurak and Anastasia Rodionova in the final, 6–3, 6–4.

Seeds

Draw

Key

References

"Doubles Draw".

Editorial summary

“2016 Bank of the West Classic – Doubles” enters the record as 2016 tennis event results. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Bank, West and Classic can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current 49-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 Bank, West and Classic.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“2016 Bank of the West Classic – Doubles” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Bank, West and Classic 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 Jan 30, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q25927323. 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 “2016 Bank of the West Classic – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2016 Bank of the West Classic – Doubles primary sources, 2016 Bank of the West Classic – Doubles archive and Bank 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 “2016 Bank of the West Classic – 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 “2016 Bank of the West Classic – 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.