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

2018 Meerbusch Challenger – Doubles

2018 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 27, 2024
Entity authorityQ56291103 ↗
Source-derived summary

Kevin Krawietz and Andreas Mies were the defending champions but lost in the quarterfinals to David Pérez Sanz and Mark Vervoort.

Pérez Sanz and Vervoort won the title after defeating Grzegorz Panfil and Volodymyr Uzhylovskyi 3–6, 6–4, [10–7] in the final.

Editorial summary

“2018 Meerbusch Challenger – Doubles” enters the record as 2018 tennis event results. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Meerbusch, Challenger and Doubles can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA strong contextual entry point for chronology, institutions and public events when official records are distinguished from later interpretation. The current 41-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 Meerbusch, Challenger and Doubles.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“2018 Meerbusch Challenger – Doubles” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Meerbusch, Challenger and Doubles provides the most credible route into that argument.

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 Jul 27, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q56291103. 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 “2018 Meerbusch Challenger – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2018 Meerbusch Challenger – Doubles primary sources, 2018 Meerbusch Challenger – Doubles archive and Meerbusch 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 “2018 Meerbusch Challenger – 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 “2018 Meerbusch Challenger – 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.