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

2017 Open Sopra Steria de Lyon – Doubles

2017 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 28, 2022
Entity authorityQ30643987 ↗
Source-derived summary

Grégoire Barrère and Tristan Lamasine were the defending champions but only Lamasine chose to defend his title, partnering Hugo Nys. Lamasine lost in the quarterfinals to Gero Kretschmer and Alexander Satschko.

Sander Gillé and Joran Vliegen won the title after defeating Kretschmer and Satschko 6–7(2–7), 7–6(7–2), [14–12] in the final.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “2017 Open Sopra Steria de Lyon – Doubles” as 2017 tennis event results. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current 50-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Sopra, Steria and Lyon can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as 2017 tennis event results. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

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 28, 2022. The linked authority identifier is Q30643987. 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 “2017 Open Sopra Steria de Lyon – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2017 Open Sopra Steria de Lyon – Doubles primary sources, 2017 Open Sopra Steria de Lyon – Doubles archive and Sopra 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 “2017 Open Sopra Steria de Lyon – Doubles”?
  2. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
  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 “2017 Open Sopra Steria de Lyon – 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.