[.] appearing in (scrubbed?) content fields #3
Description
An example is in the content_scrubbed of a Reddit comment:
Maybe you mispoke, and that[.] fine, but don’t please don’t get pissy at me for taking what you wrote at face value. ... The first modern American research university was Johns Hopkins, which is based closely on the Humboldtian model. Humboldt[.] idea for the university put a big focus on research, required all students to have a strong foundation in the humanities (philosophy, history, literature, the arts).
All of the Reddit data is in content_scrubbed -- we need to find examples in the LexisNexis data to determine whether this was introduced by out scrubbing, or by some python unicode issue, or what (and however so, where and how it should be fixed).
We want to watch out for applying a replace fix blindly, as that might be breaking the editorial [.] in legitimate examples:
This recalls Lincoln's thoughts on "Four-score and seven[.]"
Related discussion:
https://we1s.ryver.com/index.html#posts/2109151