{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03079416531604538, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.669724770642202, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What Makes History?

As you look over the reviewer's and Program Committee's comments on your paper, you may be perplexed by admonitions in one form or another to "make it more historical". After all, you've been talking about the past, you've got the events and people in chronological order, you've related what happened. What more could be needed to make history? The answer is hard to pin down in a series of methodological precepts, as history is ultimately an art acquired by professional practice. But it may help you to understand our specific criticisms if I describe what we're looking for in general terms.