Oppose (pending outcome), I have numerous problems with the scope here. Firstly, it is too broad - this presumably is in, or is near, the named settlement, so the scope should contain that name to prevent the exclusion of scopes for other such places. Secondly, I'm not sure the word "rural" should be there, these places are by fact of their density and proximity to a larger town urban. Thirdly, the chosen category is not representative of this type of community in South Africa, these: Category:Townships in South Africa, Category:Slums in South Africa and even Category:Ntuzuma and Category:Uitenhage are probably all better for South Africa. In fact, you might first consider trying to rationalise all of these categories and create a tidier category hierarchy incorporating them all by country, town, etc (I'd help with the donkey work if we can agree a schema) - then you could link specifically to "Caledon Shanty Town", or whatever the most specific to this image becomes. Fourthly, you might consider using the word "township" which is commonly used in South Africa rather in place of "shanty town". And finally, I think te place name is "Caledon" and not "Caledeon" (for the file name and in the descriptions). DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: I take your point on the spelling of Caledon. I propose withdrawing this nomination and resubmitting it under the correct spelling.
The word "township" is incorrect – see its legal meaning. I am happy to replace the word "shanty town" with "informal settlement". This artcile also has the sentence "Townships sometimes have large informal settlements nearby". What you see in this image is one such informal settlement. I don't know what the sanitation arrangements are.
You said that this type of settlement is "not representative of this type of community in South Africa". Which type of community are you talking about? On my last trip to South Africa I saw a number of large estates aimed at the black communities which were rows and rows of identi-houses. I also saw huge shanty towns outside Johannesburg in an area that was open fields when I lived there.
I am happy to replace the word "Rural" with "small town" (which is what Caledon is). I don't know whether this particular settlement justifies its own scope – I believe it to be typical of many informal settlements adjoining small towns in South Africa. The settlements that you named are all attached to large towns or cities.
The scope that I propose when I resubmit it is "Typical informal settlement adjoining a small South African town". None of the maps that looked at have named the settlement. Martinvl (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: you could just rename it on-the-fly, the response time is usually just a few minutes for a "move", I have done it in a couple of nominations. You need to adjust the candidate page appropriately too.
You misread my third point, it is the category you chose to link to that I was arguing was not representative (my words: "the chosen category is not representative") and not the settlement (your words: "said that this type of settlement is [not representative]"). And you did not address the point about poor categorisation for these images.
Additionally, I think your new scope is still too wide, it should include "Caledon" - to avoid precluding VIs of other such settlements - how about: "Informal settlement adjoining Caledon". DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: you forgot to rename this candidate page appropriately too (which I mentioned above) but I've done it now, to fix the red link in the candidate list. DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
