Talk:Little Danes experiment/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While the children were all supposed to be orphans, several were not. – Wouldn't be "most" be more appropriate than "several"?
 * Yes! Done.
 * After being moved to the camp, the children were placed in Danish foster families for over a year – Not sure; I thought they went into quarantine after being moved to the camp?
 * The quarantine was at the camp; whether Fedgaarden was just to quarantine, or whether it was a small element in a larger camp experience, it is not clear. I've avoided this by just saying what happened afterwards. This is probably in Thiesen's autobiography but I am hesitant to directly cite her as a primary source. (Also, language barrier!)
 * Just as Rasmussen refused to apologise, so too did following prime ministers of Denmark. – so this means the government of Denmark officially apologised in 2020, but not the successor of Rasmussen herself?
 * Not quite, but this is understandably very confusing. The point is that during Rasmussen's gap as PM, Helle Thorning-Schmidt refused to apologise.
 * But Minton and Thiesen don't mention her. Instead they say Subsequent Danish prime ministers have refused even to apologise on behalf of Denmark for these events, which is for some reason plural. I don't feel comfortable just naming Thorning-Schmidt if the sources say something else (and for some reason use plural), even though I don't think what's said is accurate. She definitely did refuse to apologise -- see an example -- but I can't find that explicitly stated in a source. I've added a bit about her refusing to cooperate in an investigation into it, but not sure how to proceed.
 * Image caption: Maybe state which queen, and link to her article?
 * Good idea.
 * They were supposed to be sent back to Nuuk after a short while, but the construction of the orphanage by the program stalled, and six of them were adopted instead by Danish families. – Do you know how long most of them they did stay in Denmark in the end?
 * For over a year, that's what I'm trying to convey with the first sentence of the paragraph. I've edited.
 * The next year, after waiting for the commission's report, the government of Denmark officially apologised for the little Danes experiment. – So now it is the Danish government responsible for apologising, not the prime minister?
 * Both did, but I think it's more important that the government did. (There's a corresponding article I'm working on which demonstrates how long the Danish government to respond to childhood neglect, if at all.) I had originally wanted to say something like "the PM and the government officially apologised", but I couldn't find a natural way to word this. I've taken a first stab at it.
 * Modified forms of the experiment were held in the 1960s and 1970s, where children would go to Denmark only for a short while, and then be returned to their families. – Is there anything known about those? Have they been controversial as well?
 * Unfortunately, not much. Nonbo Andersen is the only one I've found that says this, and here's everything said about it: "In the 1960s and 1970s this practice was modified into programs where children would spend shorter periods in Denmark and return to their families again. However, some children taking part in these programs still experienced negative effects." Nonbo Andersen cites an essay as evidence of this, but it's a single testimony and doesn't speak about the general system, reception, or its impacts. I've added some more information but there's nothing more I can find.
 * Thanks for the great and interesting article! Only minor nitpicks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, . I've made some edits - mostly addressed, couple things I would like your voice on or to look over. Relatedly, I'm interested in your thoughts on this edit, which boldfaced the article title. I'm undecided on whether this is appropriate, because the phrase "little Danes experiment" is a purely descriptive title, and not used by anyone else. Maybe this could give an impression that this is the actual name for it (which would be inaccurate), or maybe I'm overthinking it. Urve (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes, . I'm promoting this now. Regarding your question: I would say, in this case, you might want to move the article to a more descriptive title. If "Little Danes experiment" is not a term that is actually in use, we cannot introduce it as a new term here. I once had a similar problem with an article I wanted to name Senckenberg mummy; however the term "Senckenberg mummy" only appears in a single book, where it was used ad hoc; it was therefore not an established term, so I had to go for the ugly title Edmontosaurus mummy SMF R 4036 instead. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for reading over the article and your help, . You've helped make the encyclopedia better by making knowledge more accessible. I'll look more into what a good title for this would be, and if I find one, I'll move it. My first thought is Eksperimentet, but that is complicated and unfortunately not English. We'll see. Thanks again. Urve (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)