Talk:Fukushima reactor suffers multiple fires, radiation leak confirmed

The title says "radiation leak confirmed", but nothing in the body of the article currently supports that. 216.251.112.134 (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes it does. In the first part of the article you will see the sentence "The fire caused a leak of radioactive material." - That is supported and confirmed by the source listed from the RIA Novosti news agency. BarkingFish (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The article says "the Fukushima plant's No. 4 reactor", but there is no THE Fukushima plant -- there are two plant sites. Fukushima I (Daichii) and Fukushima II (Dainii) Intgr (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's been amended :) BarkingFish (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Confusing title

Maybe it is just me but I find the title Fukushima reactor extinguished after fire, radiation leak confirmed confusing. At first glance one may think that the reactor itself has been extinguished. Perhaps it needs to be changed to something like Fire at Fukushima reactor extinguished, radiation leak confirmed. Again, it may be just me so feel free to ignore this and/or seek advice from another user - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 13:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "Fukushima reactor reactor fire extinguished, radiation leak confirmed"? —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Length

Is this article too short? Its not in paragraph form, it also only lists six ideas (sentences.) --[[::User:Nascar1996|Nascar1996]] ([[::User talk:Nascar1996|talk]] • [[::Special:Contributions/Nascar1996|contribs]]) 20:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, it meets the three paragraph minimum. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1195557 [Passed]

Revision 1195557 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1195557 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.