GDP per capita, so why not deaths per capita per year?
No correction for demographics (age)
The linear regression is incorrect. It is impossible for a continent to have negative deaths). There are no standard error lines around the curve (like so)
The chart is too verbose to tell a good story. Remove half of the information, and it improves.
It should be the "reported death rate", because we don't know the true death rate.
Is this deaths per year? (probably, but implied).
An informational chart would plot:
GDP per capita (which is a terrible metric, but hey... you probably read the wikipedia page before publishing a graph, so you know what you're doing)
vs. Deaths per capita due to outdoor pollution in a specific age-group (60-70 or sth). This is an unreliable metric, because different countries account for deaths differently. If someone smoked in a polluted area and dies of lung cancer, what would you attribute the death to?
Remove the linear regression lines.
Remove the bottom 20 percentile of smaller countries.
Label only the top 20 percentile of countries or don't label at all.
Remove the average lines.
Perhaps also remove the size <> population of the scatter plot.
Make 5 panels for each continent with a shared GDP axis (like so) if you want to disentangle the information.
But, most importantly, what should be the title of the story you want to tell with this chart?
sleeper_must_awaken t1_iuflsfa wrote
Reply to [OC] Kuznet's curve - Death Rate due to outdoor Air Pollution vs GDP per capita by eqqqxy
This chart is atrocious:
An informational chart would plot:
But, most importantly, what should be the title of the story you want to tell with this chart?