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

2021 Bol Open – Doubles

2021 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 20, 2024
Entity authorityQ107137244 ↗
Source-derived summary

Timea Bacsinszky and Mandy Minella were the defending champions, having won the previous edition in 2019, but chose not to participate.

Aliona Bolsova and Katarzyna Kawa won the title, defeating Ekaterine Gorgodze and Tereza Mihalíková in the final, 6–1, 4–6, [10–6].

Editorial summary

“2021 Bol Open – Doubles” enters the record as 2021 tennis event results. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Doubles, tennis and event can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewMost valuable as an event-and-institution map that identifies actors, dates and record creators for deeper historical inquiry. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2019—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Doubles, tennis and event.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“2021 Bol Open – Doubles” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Doubles, tennis and event provides the most credible route into that argument.

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 Dec 20, 2024. The linked authority identifier is Q107137244. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2019.

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 “2021 Bol Open – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2021 Bol Open – Doubles primary sources, 2021 Bol Open – Doubles archive and Doubles 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 “2021 Bol Open – Doubles”?
  2. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
  3. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “2021 Bol 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.