IAPLC 2020 top 127

[Onoma1]

I agree fully with the post from @PARAGUAY, however, I couldn't see how some of the winning tanks fitted with the judging criteria (http://en.iaplc.com/about/grading.htm). In particular:

Recreation of natural habitat for fish (Maximum 50 points)
・Evaluation of layout work if corresponding type, size, physiology and ecology of fish

② Long-term maintenance of layout work (Maximum 10 points)
・Chance of maintaining the aquascape for a long period of time
・Screening of whether or not the expression shown in the layout photo is produced temporarily only for photography

 

[Nuno Gomes]

I agree fully with the post from @PARAGUAY, however, I couldn't see how some of the winning tanks fitted with the judging criteria (http://en.iaplc.com/about/grading.htm). In particular:

Recreation of natural habitat for fish (Maximum 50 points)
・Evaluation of layout work if corresponding type, size, physiology and ecology of fish

② Long-term maintenance of layout work (Maximum 10 points)
・Chance of maintaining the aquascape for a long period of time
・Screening of whether or not the expression shown in the layout photo is produced temporarily only for photography

I highly doubt most of the criteria they claim to use are actually used for all layouts. Then again, considering they dont publicly show the exact scores for each category and will not discuss grading, we'll never know.
It does not bother me that much, but no matter how interesting it looks, I would compare using mirrors in an aquarium to using a fake sunken ship or cave.