Oppose Scope OK for me. You geolocation does not match the apparent camera position ENE of the house with a heading WSW. Did you know you could add your camera heading to the as a heading parameter? I can recommend, that as it makes this cool pointer when seen on Google Maps/Earth. I am not too happy about the trees partially obstructing the view and the partially cropped building, so I'd say it does not illustrate the scope well. When I look at the map it seems like it is in fact quite hard to get a good place to photograph the entire facade in one photo. If it was me photographing the building, I would probably take several images while positioned closer to the building (with no obstructing trees), and then stitch them in, e.g., Hugin. See, e.g., here, where I used that technique. --Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it a little odd that you spread comments relating to this to your talk page, and a notification on my talk page. Personally, I find it more natural to keep comments relating to this VIC on the nomination page. Spreading them around is confusing, especially once talk pages get archived. I always watch VICs pages I edit, as I think most VIC reviewers do. Not a big deal, but just such that you know you can spare the extra work another time. --Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not bad at all! Sure, there are stitching errors. But considering that you have used quite a large number of images, which makes it harder to handle, you have done alright . And in review size it is a serious candidate. To start out with stitching I would use fewer images, i.e., four (if you can capture the entire building in four), and then I would choose one of the rectangular projections such that the lines in the building are straightened out and you get a more isometric look. --Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
