This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:28, April 15, 2015 (JST, Heisei 27) (Refresh)
This is actually fairly close to a B-class. Some points to consider:
References: Needed in a few places. I'll mark a couple places where I think citations are needed.
Coverage: What about deaths, or the cost of collateral damage, from the earthquake? Little is said about the aftermath of the earthquake. For example, was any liability found with the way the Japanese government responded or did they modify any existing policies? Did studies of the liquefaction of soil as a result of this earthquake contribute to the development of safer buildings? (On this point, I should say there is a pretty good start concerning the Showa Bridge).
What is "VIII"? (besides the number 8) Is it a Class-VIII, VIII-Degree, Category VIII, Level-VIII, or Intensity Level VIII? There should be something that defines and qualifies the number, and not just the numeral in the middle of the sentence. In the previous sentence, "7.6" has a similar problem, but the qualifier "magnitude" is located relatively close to the scalar quantity.
How did the "calculated focal mechanism [indicate] reverse faulting on a N-S trending fault"? What does that mean to me, the reader who thinks earthquakes are interesting, but doesn't know much about the technical details?
I hope you don't mind, I'll go ahead and clean up a couple minor points of grammatical style. Good luck! Boneyard90 (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I added the inline cites as requested and clarified (hopefully) the magnitude and intensity scales. As to the focal mechanism, that is internally linked to our article that should explain things further (I wrote most of it so the degree to which it does is not for me to say) - hard to explain how they are used in a few words. Finally, there should be more about the damage and the aftermath, but it may be a while before I get round to this - there are a lot more articles to write and, at my last count, more than 70 to expand from stubs. Cheers, Mikenorton (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Cool. I concur with the part about the focal mechanism. It does look like a complex concept to sum up in a parenthetical phrase, so the internal link should be sufficient. Out. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)