I think all the palaces/rich person residences we visited (there were a number of these around Iran) had stained glass, lattice work and frescoes fairly similar to the photos taken by the visitor you link to - their quality/significance is another matter and I am no expert!
Your point about the treatment of German "regional" residences seems "fair" - all other things such as authenticity and quality etc being equal.

I believe the unfairness in the ICOMOS report lies in 2 views:
1. Not mention any similar sites (regarding to the palace), which they would consider at the same level (regional) or above (world class)
2. Propose "not to inscribe" without making a difference between the indeed not that remarkable town and the palace (and include a demeaning note that they will glance over Azerbaijan's T List together to see what else is there)

It could have been a Defer, with the assignment to do an in-depth comparative analysis among Persian residences.

I also feel a bit sorry for Sheki. I think that their nomination document could have been focused differently, but also there might have been some biased views from ICOMOS side. That doesn't mean that the nomination of the old town would be uncomplicated. Already during my visit in Sheki old town I noticed potential problems concerning authenticity and the level of restoration. Therefore, as I mentioned in my review, I was a bit doubtful about the inscription.

As for Khan's Palace I thought that there could be at least some chances for inscription. About similar palaces in Iran, the nearest comparisons from my own experiences in Iran are the famous mansions in Kashan which are from the sameish era. Also some palaces in Shiraz have the same qualities. But those examples are on different scale and environment. I'm not really expert on these specific architectural details so I leave the comparisons to professionals.

I don't know much about the Lake District site, so I can't comment, but I thought this blog post by George Monbiot might interest others here:

Was already linked to on May 12 when it was originally pub;ished in the Guardian - http://www.worldheritagesite.org/forums/index.php?action=vthread&forum=10&topic=212&p age=7#msg16832
It is important I think to know about G Monbiot and where he is coming from - that doesn't necessarily make him "wrong" of course but it should inform how his articles are assessed!
See - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Monbiot

As to Hebron, ever since "palestine" was admitted as a state to UNESCO, it and UNESCO itself has been at WAR with Israel. They attacked Israel for it's careful archeological work, they've attacked Israel for the Western Wall plaza and forcing the christians to agree to badly needed repairs on the Church of the Holy seplichre. So yes, Hebrron will indeed be inscribed, primarily as a way to be mean to Israel.

If so, like Bethlehem and Battir, it will be as an Emergency nomination - which Palestine seems to have identified as a perfect way to evade the cumbersome normal nomination & ICOMOS processes that all other countries have to go through.

Addendum documents have been published.

Landscapes of Dauria (Mongolia, Russian Federation) I

Boundary Modification
Gelati Monastery, Georgia Approved
Historic Areas of Istanbul (Turkey) Approved

China and Russia may be the only State Parties with 2 inscription this year.

- Kulangsu: a Historic International Settlement (China) I
- Qinghai Hoh Xil (China) I
- The Assumption Cathedral of the town-island of Sviyazhsk (Russia) I
- Landscapes of Dauria (Mongolia, Russia) I

In addition, Chenonceau is added to the Loire Valley as a minor border modification.

Vienna (Austria) and Cerrado (Brazil) are both recommended an in-danger inscription.

Comoe (Ivory Coast) to be removed from the in-danger list.
The decision whether to delete Shakhrisyabz (Uzbekistan) is to be met in 2018. The decision whether to inscribe the Great Barrier Reef (Australia) on the in-danger is to be met in 2020.

Pleased to learn that this injustice is being repaired.

Has anyone read the cock and bull story which accompanies this so called "minor border modification"?
In 2000, "The Loire Valley between Sully-sur-Loire and Chalonnes" was inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv). The initial nomination dossier however was inconsistent in its treatment of the Château de Chenonceau: although not shown on the maps indicating the boundaries of the property, the château was described in an information sheet in the dossier, stating that it was one of the property's principal monuments. The State Party wishes to correct this inconsistency by requesting a minor modification of the property's boundaries"

I have looked through the 553 page Nomination Dossier which actually dates back to 1998 and had to be resubmitted in 2000 after an original deferral largely because of concern about the nuclear power station. Indeed it only gained inscription via a very tight WHC vote.
Because a large part of the dossier is photocopied it isn't possible to carry out a simple PDF "search" to discover references to Chenonceau. I eventually found what must be the information sheet referred on Page 172 with 5 additional lines on the next page. It sits between a similar page for the "Ville de Tours" and "Amboise" I can see NOTHING stating that it was one of the property's "principal monuments"! It does say that "il est, dans sa categorie, le monument le plus visite du Val de Loire". It was given Ref no 56 BUT the section is then followed by pages and pages of maps not a single one of which shows Chenonceau. So - was the "mistake" or "inconsistency" the missing out of Chenonceau from page after page of the Nomination dossier, maps etc etc or the inclusion of a single page among over 500 as the only reference that it might have been intended to be a part of the Nomination"?

At no point did ICOMOS point out that Chenonceau (which isn't actually situated in the Loire Valley" of course, even if it is culturally linked to it) should be included in the maps, boundaries etc etc. Indeed it seems to have been quite happy that this chateau outside the phyisical "Loire Valley" should not be included. That, whilst the inclusion of the previously inscribed Chateau of Chambord DID receive particular comment - indeed it seems that the nomination of the Cultural Landscape of the Loire Valley was only nominated on criteria ii and iv - and it was the WHC which decided to carry forward Criterion i - "Chambord has been inscribed on the World Heritage List on the basis of criterion (i) alone. The revised State Party nomination incorporated this property into the cultural landscape of the Loire Valley. The Committee decided that criterion (i) is also applicable to this new inscription." No mention for instance that Chenonceau would support/bolster this additional criterion.

17 years has passed since the Loire Valley was inscribed - even the 2012 Periodic Report made no mention of the lack of Chenonceau. And now after all this time we are supposed to believe that a little "mistake" was made or an "inconsistency" was introduced which now needs correcting!

In fact of course France was up against it to get the Loire Valley inscribed in 2000 and seems to have majored on the Cultural Landscape aspects and saw no need to include a Chateau from a different "valley". So, now we have one of the World's most significant Chateaux added on the fly as a "minor modification"!

I wonder how ICOMOS would have treated a similar "minor modification" from a smaller non European country!!

The photos of the properties studied this year have just been put online.
http://whc.unesco.org/en/newproperties/