For me the main issue is not so much that they inscribe sites that are recommended as D or R - they usually get inscribed anyway one or two sessions later,
I don't think that was always the case in the past. But other may know better. Pragmatically, get away with r and d if that effectively means inscribe.
Quanzhou's remains look to me to be justified as representative of sea trade during the Song dynasty (960-1279)
Must have mixed it up with another colonial China site...
because the WH Convention in itself doesn't care about touristic appeal
I think every whs traveller knows that ouv <> touristic appeal. Still, you can question the ouv of a railway built in the 20th century. Or yet another limes rotten wood watch tower.
Yes, I do think the forums tend to be Eurocentric in perspective, along with the assessments in other parts of this site
I would disagree re assessment. The whole thread is filled with Europeans complaining about the European approach to whs. I didn't read a single comment so far re Burle. Haven't seen his work and would be curious myself. In the case of la plata you can read my glowing review of le corbusier work there.