Bringing this over from the Germany WHS topic

A Jewish cemetery in the Netherlands was also asked to join this serial transboundary nomination, but the Ministry of Culture deemed that there was too little chance of success when nominating only cemeteries:
http://www.bethhaim.nl/unesco-werelerfgoednominatie/

Interesting piece in the Parool newspaper today:
http://www.parool.nl/opinie/-grachtengordel-heeft-unesco-keurmerk-gekregen-door-onjui ste-aanname~a4500025/

It points out the incorrect description of the Canal Ring of Amsterdam in the ICOMOS AB evaluation and at the Unesco website.
In both sources it is mentioned that 'draining the swampland' was necessary to expand the city limits and create the canal ring. But there was never any marshland or swamp in the area. The text also isn't in the nomination file prepared by the Dutch.
The author suggests that although the ICOMOS/Unesco text has been reviewed by the Dutch authorities, noone asked for a change as it may have sounded like a nice marketing story.

I was trying to access something about the Teylers Museum Nomination File following Els's recent blog on the subject - but unfortunately the link to a summary of it on Wiki is a "permanent dead link"!

Whilst (unsuccessfully as yet!) searching further I did come across 2 other documents about Netherlands and WHS which might be of interest

a. A presentation by the NL "Cultural Heritage Agency" titled "Preparing Serial World Heritage nominations in the Netherlands" which is on the web site of the "Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltachts' World Heritage Ireland" (I guess it must have the subject of a meeting with them)! It is undated but must have been from around 2014/5. It contains a summary of NL's "WHS Themes" as demonstrated in its latest T List (and, perhaps via some post hoc "rationalisation"!) in its inscribed sites too.
I noted 2 interesting aspects
a. The hint that NL might be/have been looking at linking with Finland for a transnational Sanitorium nomination with Paimio and Zonnestraal (Els notes the potential "competition" between the 2 in her Paimio review). This document from the Finnish Board of Antiquities from 2005 on the Paimio Nomination (presumably produced as part of the addtion of Paimio to Finland's T List in 2004?) refers significantly to Zonnestraal but doesn't conclude anything about (or even suggest) a transboundary approach. It wouldn't seem to be a "no runner" however, but Finland would have to choose between a transnational nomination based on the growth of modern medical approaches to public health or a paeon to the architecture of Avo Aalto. I would have thought that the former would have had a better chance! See - http://www.nba.fi/fi/File/410/nomination-of-paimio-hospital.pdf
b. Quite a lot of (early) details about the "Colonies of Benevolence" nomination - costs, organisation of the transboundary aspects etc etc

See http://www.worldheritageireland.ie/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/Preparing_Serial_W orld_Heritage_Nominations_in_the_Netherlands_-_Dre_van__Marrewijk.pdf

The second document was (undated, but, from the text probably early 2013) from the NL "RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE HERITAGE AND HISTORY OF THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE AND URBAN ENVIRONMENT" titled "The Future of World Heritage The Netherlands and the UNESCO World Heritage Convention". A lot of it is standard WHS background but Chapter 2 "The Netherlands and World Heritage" includes statements about how NL managed/coordinated its 4 year period on the WHC.. Some countries at least do more than just "turn up". "play it by ear" and support their political/cultural allies!
See - http://www.ghhpw.com/future_world_heritage.pdf

There's also a link in it to another interesting document on the matter of decision making within the WHC: Global Cultural Governance by Thomas Schmitt.

a) not a fan of Fangirl's reviews if I have to link off-site to read it :( https://www.worldheritagesite.org/list/Amsterdam+Canal+Ring

b) The staff at the Eise Eisinga Planetarium are telling the crowds they want to attempt an inscription in 2022 and looking at the Netherlands page that's the next free slot. Truly a marvel.

Our clicks are presumably helping to pay for the travel??
"COPYRIGHT © 2017 GOTHREETWENTYFOUR - PRIVACY / DISCLOSURE: GOTHREETWENTYFOUR IS A PARTICIPANT IN THE AMAZON SERVICES LLC ASSOCIATES PROGRAM, AN AFFILIATE ADVERTISING PROGRAM DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A MEANS FOR US TO EARN FEES BY LINKING TO AMAZON.COM AND AFFILIATED SITES."

Not really - affiliate links are for when a page links to a particular item on Amazon. If you buy it (having clicked on the link, which may not obviously be an ad), the person linking it will get a small commission paid by Amazon. You typically see them on those "this is what's in my camera bag"-type posts that bloggers love, and from what I can see there aren't any on that Amsterdam page.

Though I agree the review should really have a bit more substance.

It's always a thin line, and I try to warn the bloggers when they are about to cross it.
We've all written reviews of little substance in the past (maybe not you, Solivagant, but I certainly have). The depth and quality has gone way up over the last years. But that does not mean I want to throw away all the older ones. Some do have a certain charm in their own way, and reflect a certain period/viewpoint. "Let 100 (1000) flowers bloom" would be my motto.

Oh we are going Maoist!

Let me be first to pledge my support for Chaiman Els.

I have quite enjoyed some of History Fangirl's off site content (mostly through Instagram), as Els says it is a fine line to keep under review.

I would agree, although I share Zoe's skepticism about off-site reviews, if there is only a short introduction here. It is true that almost all of us have shown an improvement in their reviews. Sometimes I am tempted to improve my older reviews, but I only add a comment if I find a mistake. It is interesting to follow my own development.
When I joined the forum in 2011 it was already a very good website, the best for information on World Heritage sites. But it is incredible how much it has been improved over the years.

Renomination of Colonies of Benevolence (2020) will drop 2 sites in NL (Willemsoord and Ommerschans) and 1 in Belgium (Merksplas):
https://www.dvhn.nl/drenthe/Goed-nieuws-voor-drie-Drentse-Koloni%C3%ABn-van-Weldadigheid-Werelderfgoedstatus-is-flinke-stap-dichterbij-24809252.html

Fort Kijkuit is mentioned as one of the sites on the map for the Defence Line of Amsterdam, but the Dutch Wikipedia article on it, mentions in a footnote that "As has been reported before in a clarification of boundaries that was part of the Retrospective Inventory Project , Fort Kijkuit in 's- Graveland is NOT a fort of the Defence Line of Amsterdam, but belongs to the Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie, which is on the Tentative List!", Periodic Report - Section II-Defence Line of Amsterdam, mei 2014"

Should Fort Kijkuit be removed then? It is part of the T-listed site "Nieuwe Hollandse Waterlinie"

It seems to have been finally removed in 2018, though it was part of the original nomination (probably mistaken, or they discovered only a few years later, see also https://www.stelling-amsterdam.nl/bunkers/nieuwehollandsewaterlinie/kijkuit/)
http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/7163

I'll add a Revision update