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

2019 Ningbo Challenger – Doubles

2019 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 10, 2026
Entity authorityQ74121404 ↗
Source-derived summary

Gong Maoxin and Zhang Ze were the defending champions but lost in the first round to Nam Ji-sung and Song Min-kyu.

Andrew Harris and Marc Polmans won the title after defeating Alex Bolt and Matt Reid 6–0, 6–1 in the final.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “2019 Ningbo Challenger – Doubles” is 2019 tennis event results. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Ningbo, Challenger and Doubles, 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 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. For this dossier, Ningbo, Challenger and Doubles is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “2019 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 10, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q74121404. 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 “2019 Ningbo Challenger – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2019 Ningbo Challenger – Doubles primary sources, 2019 Ningbo Challenger – Doubles archive and Ningbo 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 “2019 Ningbo Challenger – 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 “2019 Ningbo 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.