File talk:Principaux Bidonvilles.png

This map is extremely inaccurate. Neza-Chaclo-Izta, Soweto, Gaza and Tlalpan are not real shanty-towns at all. From what I know Neza-Chalco-Itza must be Ciudad Nezahualcoyotl, but it is way too off the mark to consider Nezahualcoyotl a gigantic shanty-town, as it is a proper city. Soweto isn't a real shanty-town either. There are certainly affluent parts of Soweto. Gaza is the same. Tlalpan has some poor parts, but there are also affluent parts too. It's seems that the map fails to recognize that. Kanzler31 (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And what happened to Rocinha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.101.139.185 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nezahualcoyotl is not a slum, it is a municipality, it has a city government and representation and all of that. Look up Ciudad Nezahualcóyotl in Google earth, and then tell me, "it is(not) a slum". It sure is ugly, but not near to what i would call a slum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.144.49.222 (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

This map has several problems.

1) The circles are not centered on the slums themselves. They are visibly off, by several hundred km in some cases. There is no good reason for this and is very annoying to look at.

2) What does it mean when there is one circle inside another, with a single label? This is not explained in the legend.

3) Do we really need to show both size and colour as indication population? Why use two when either would work fine on its own?

4) Why not just write out the names of the slums? There are few enough listed that there'd be plenty of space.

5) Listing slums in such an arbitrary way as "what this one scholar says" seems to be of questionable value, when its clear there are many slums that are not included on the map. 104.247.228.249 (talk) 22:47, 5 August 2015 (UTC)