Question Why did you chose "Court pharmacy" as scope, if the ground floor with the Court Pharmacy is cut off? Wouldn't be "Buildings of Hermann Billing, Kaiserstr. 201 in Karlsruhe" or something like that better? --Llez (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The building is known by its name. You may argue that the name should be in German then. The court pharmacy isn't in the ground floor, it's in history. There's no court since 1918. The pharmacist who rents the shop today has just kept the historic name. And the pharmacy does and did extend to the first floor. The low intermediate storey behind the arch windows is the place where the drugs were being made and are stored today.
Oppose Ikar.us himself has expressed some reservations regarding criterion 3. Moreover, I would say that a building is really worth its own scope if it is rather well-known by itself. This one hasn't an article on its own on any Wikipedia, unless I'm wrong (of course it isn't an absolute proof, but a WP article can help to attest the notoriety of a building). This one is simply listed in the de:WP and fr:WP articles about Hermann Billing. As said in a previous review, a set about the different styles of works by Hermann Billing could be interesting. For a single VI, if the scope was "Works of Hermann Billing", the chosen building should be Jugendstil preferably, but also quite notable, shouldn't it? --Myrabella (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Image:Karlsruhe Hofapotheke ganz.jpg? I discarded it because the view angle on the facades is so flat that no details can be seen. [2] even managed to have sun on both facades - must have been near midsummer, with the morning sun in the north-east. He still has a shadow on the left and the tree on the right. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](http://www.stille-zeitzeugen.de/szka/archiv/medium/gr_277.jpg){kind=link}
