CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

2017 Uruguay Open – 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 revisionJul 9, 2026
Entity authorityQ42955362 ↗
Source-derived summary

Andrés Molteni and Diego Schwartzman were the defending champions but only Molteni chose to defend his title, partnering Sergio Galdós. Molteni lost in the first round to Pedro Cachin and Nicolás Jarry.

Romain Arneodo and Fernando Romboli won the title after defeating Ariel Behar and Fabiano de Paula 2–6, 6–4, [10–8] in the final.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “2017 Uruguay Open – Doubles” is 2017 tennis event results. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Uruguay, Doubles and tennis, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current 54-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, Uruguay, Doubles and tennis is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “2017 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

Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 9, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q42955362. 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 “2017 Uruguay Open – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2017 Uruguay Open – Doubles primary sources, 2017 Uruguay Open – Doubles archive and Uruguay 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 Uruguay Open – Doubles”?
  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 “2017 Uruguay 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.