> It remains strictly factual without adding neither positive nor negative biases to the stories.

It is the opinion of many historians that history cannot be objective. All writers need to make decisions when writing a text: what to include, what to omit, and even what sources to read (because you cannot read them all). Those decisions are influenced by the author's upbringing, culture, and values.

Here's an excerpt from an excellent article which discusses this:

> To better understand history, I think historians should begin to admit their limitations. For example, I have chosen to study Emperor Franz Joseph’s role in the lead up to the First World War. I examine an angle of the declaration of World War I that is little studied. Yet, it also raises some concerns as to the subjectivity of my work. Because I am focusing on the person of the Emperor, I am bound to attribute more agency to him than someone who studies the Great War from a purely national or international perspective. This leaves me predisposed to seeing Franz Joseph as a key actor.

https://theartofpolemics.com/2014/09/05/can-history-be-objec...

As a resident of Brooklyn I also recommend it very highly. It's an uncommonly well written narrative, and fascinating insight into an era of history that you really don't get in the standard US public school curriculum.