This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Libraries Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Libraries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Libraries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LibrariesWikipedia:WikiProject LibrariesTemplate:WikiProject LibrariesLibraries Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2025 and 6 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acarajé No 1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MSIS student, Shahmaty, StreamunrealGlow.

— Assignment last updated by GardenMoth25 (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this article for a college assignment--my first Wikipedia article to edit!--and I would like to improve this article first and foremost by rewriting the History section because out of the four paragraphs that make up this section, only one source is mentioned, which when you click on the citation subscript will take you to a line in the references section that just says "Reference 7." You then have to look at the bullet point list below the reference list and find out (and count) which line is mapped to "Reference 7." Also, the only time periods mentioned in this section cover 1850-1890, which is missing out on a whole wealth of information that occurred throughout the 20th century.

So, I propose included a new History section that covers 3 time periods: 19th, 20th & 21st century, and will include many citations throughout the text. I will also include some photos of historic microfilm readers that are in the public domain, plus two photos that I took of two microfilm readers that currently reside in my university library. I feel that it's necessary to include a few images because it's impactful for the reader to see how the design of microfilm readers have shifted and changed throughout time.

Additionally, I'd like to tweak the short Lead section from one paragraph into three paragraphs. I'd like for the reader to have a concise yet informative overview of what the article will be about: 1.) what a microfilm reader is; 2.) how they have changed throughout time based on the popularity of its underlying microform (which my History section will cover in more detail); and 3.) where microfilm readers stand today. I, of course, will also include the necessary citation in this section as well.

Any thoughts, comments, or concerns about my proposed changes will be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Acarajé No 1 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Clarity, Structure, and Organization

Strengths of the article:

The sandbox draft is wonderfully structured into brief, chronological sections: Lead, History, 19th Century, 20th Century, and 21st Century. Century-specific sections make the article more informative and allow readers to grasp the historical evolution of the microfilm reader in bite-sized chunks.The transitions between sections are smooth, and the article is very readable.

Suggestions for the article:

Make the headings slightly adjusted by indented nesting of the "19th Century," "20th Century," and "21st Century" in the top == History == level. This will be more consistent with typical Wikipedia presentation conventions and follow consistency rules of similar pages.

Put the title "My Proposal: Lead Section" together with just == Lead == or better still, don't include a title in the published copy—it just needs to begin with the lead.

2. Depth and Accuracy of Content

Strengths of the article:

The draft far surpasses the original article in depth. It has fascinating, lesser-known historical progressions such as Dagron's patent wars, the Fiskeoscope, and Robert Brown's "Readies" machine. Employing real inventions, patent numbers, names, and physical media (such as 3x1 inch slides, 16mm film, etc.) manifests depth and accuracy that lends credence to the article.

It highlights technological advances from analog to digital microfilm readers, tracing the path of innovation into the 21st century.

Suggestions for the article:

The abundance of detail is appreciated, but occasionally the article could be assisted by more concise wording. For example: ".and led to the explosive growth of the motion picture industry." could be rewritten more neutrally as:-".which contributed to the growth of the motion picture industry." A few long sentences can be broken up into shorter ones to improve readability, especially for mobile and quick-scan readers.

3. Use of Sources and Inline Citations

Strengths of the draft:

The provided references at the end are comprehensive and from credible sources—government documents, patents, university records, etc. Primary and secondary sources have both been added to the list, thus making the article more credible.

Suggestions for the article:

The most important step next is adding inline citations for specific claims with  tags. For example: "The Checkograph snapped pictures of several checks simultaneously then recorded the micro images onto Kodak 16 mm film."

should be accompanied by: html Copy Edit  Avoid broad references without having them directly associated with facts from the article. Wikipedia articles necessitate verifiability for each factual statement.

4. Wikipedia Style and Formatting

Strengths of the draft:

The tone is primarily encyclopedic and objective—there are very few subjective sentences. Captions for proposed images (e.g., the Fiskeoscope or ScanPro 2200) are informative and suitable for Wikimedia Commons use.

Suggestions for the draft:

Bold the first sentence of the lead:

"A microfilm reader is a device for projecting and enlarging images."

Add internal Wikipedia links for relevant terms such as: Microfilm Daguerreotype Kodak Computer Output Microfilm Magic Lantern Fiskeoscope

Replace sentences like "My Proposal: History Section" with clean headers like:

wiki Copy Edit

[edit]

[edit]

[edit]

5. Originality and Educational Value

Strengths of the draft:

This is arguably the most remarkable aspect of the draft. The article isn't improved—it's another beast. It introduces profound historical narrative, technical nuance, and contemporary pertinence that the initial article can simply not compete with.

The inclusion of COM (Computer Output Microfilm) and USB 3.1 adaptation illustrates exceptional consideration for how microfilm technology complements evolving digital infrastructures.

Suggestions for the draft:

Add a "Further Reading" or "External Links" section where possible, including links to organizations like the National Micrographics Association or digital archive facilities.

6. Final Summary and Recommendation This sandbox version is an excellent example of a well-researched, well-structured Wikipedia article. It is far superior to the current article on Microfilm Reader and provides readers:

Detailed historical context Crisp technological descriptions Helpful visual descriptions Smooth reading experience

If the donor places inline citations, edits section headers, and adds internal links, this page could be released straight away or merged with the main page.

1. ^ .
2. ^ Cady, Susan A. Machine Tool Of Management: A History Of Microfilm Technology. 1994.

MSIS student (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]