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

2016 Hoff Open – Singles

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 revisionDec 5, 2023
Entity authorityQ24589943 ↗
Source-derived summary

Daniel Muñoz de la Nava was the defending champion, but chose not to defend his title.

Mikhail Kukushkin won the title after defeating Steven Diez 6–3, 6–3 in the final.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “2016 Hoff Open – Singles” is 2016 tennis event results. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Hoff, Singles and tennis, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA strong contextual entry point for chronology, institutions and public events when official records are distinguished from later interpretation. The current 30-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Hoff, Singles and tennis is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “2016 tennis event results” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

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 Dec 5, 2023. The linked authority identifier is Q24589943. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Later summaries often reconcile disputed chronology or motive more neatly than the contemporary record permits. 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 Hoff Open – Singles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2016 Hoff Open – Singles primary sources, 2016 Hoff Open – Singles archive and Hoff 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 Hoff Open – Singles”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “2016 Hoff 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.