A bit better than "Sky observer". I guess because less sky was included and so the light metering didn't have to be an average between regions with a big difference in lighting. Any comments would be very welcome.
First of all, thanks a bunch for the detailed real comment, Visar! This is the way it should be! I can follow your mind this way, and see what you see a bit clearer. Which is the real way for exchange, far away from celebrating oneliners that didn't ever contribute the slightest amount for communication. And when everybody here is using this word so quickly I really have to ask myself how the writers of oneliners think that we communicate. Reading minds?
So, thanks a lot once again for this comment! I think too now, after your suggestion, that the time of the day was not the best possible for the emblems. And they would add impact if taken in their most powerful colors, which the shadow weakened. This is really a great point, Visar, and I thank you very much for that! It shows not only something very important for this image, bute rather something very important for any capture and all the work of the photographer! We depend on the available light, and thus we could perhaps be closer connected to the natural rhythm of night and day. I start noticing that I observe things about light conditions much much closer now than I did before starting with photography. A good thing to happen since so much light/darkness would simply disappear unnoticed otherwise.
The chosen depth here is also something of my "old" days, when I really heavily preferred that flat close-up look that you absolutely described. You must have noticed that almost the whole series was shot with the Canon FD 70-210mm which at that time was one of my favorits. Of course much of that can be attributed to the natural astonishment that such a "telescope view" never fails to bring, and of which I think that it is often a strong reason for such images. But as the time passes by I realize also that this kind of enthousiasm towards such close-ups with almost zero depth gets less.
This way it is exactly as you said: A "militaristic exactness" with some few deviations. And of the latter I must also accept that I wasn't pretty much aware of. It simply "looked well" cropped this way, but upto now I dodn't really consciously realized why. So I also thank you for referring to those reasons and making me understand better what I saw when I cropped this.
this is a neat composition Nick, a good one. every shape within has its share, all so 'militaristically' put- rigid and firm. but even in the military, i guess, you have those that provoke drill instructors by not fully obeying them- like, moving a bit onto the right or left but still within the line. like the right window of your bottom line of windows that is at the edge and the first one on the left on the second row. but, yet, i cannot say that got out of hand nor i find 'em distracting. at the first sight it looks simple, and i find it simple, but then (i guess in the right format) there is details attractive for the viewer- the emblems (?) on the window, each one a different one. i only do cannot make up my mind about the light timing here- if you had taken it earlier you might have had these details more visible but than you'd lose the contrast which i like a lot and that can be interepreted many different ways- like, shadow has been cast over that time when those emblems were made and served their purpose.... however, the most striking i find the perspective! you know, i love depth in photography (that i really find a challenge to produce) as much as i love rarities in composition- like here; we have a caslte, two dimentional, with no depth at all; and it goes deceiving my senses of orientation. and a very small detail, almost too obselete, but yet very poignant is the window that lets us see through- to me it somehow diminishes that all grandiosity attitude of the building/ so full of thick unbreachable stone and wassive wall.
0 
