What is one of the criteria that historians consider?

the payment made by the publisher to the source's author

the race and gender of the source's author

the accuracy and internal consistency of the source

the ease of availability of the source

All of the above.

Explanation:

This is a very good question. Academic historians are looking to pull apart a source to ensure that it is reliable.  This means that we have to look at the all the factors that go into a sources production.

The race and gender of a writer can identify facts about them- for instance if they were an unsual writer for that area of the world. It can identify inherent unintended biases within their work.

The payment made to the author will also impact what they say. This is very true of the medieval and ancient world, where the wishes of ones patron were considered to be very important. Works commissioned and paid for by the king are likely to be more complementary about him and his family and more critical of his enemies.

The accuracy and internal consistency of the source is obviosuly also very important. Should a source not be consistent in its narrative, then it raises the question of its reliability within its information.

The ease of avaliability, whilst not a main priority for a historian, is something for them to consider. If a source is made widely avaliable, then why was it made so avaliable. Was it because it is propaganda, or is it simply coincidence.

it reintroduced the two-party system.

a question i dont know the answer to > o<