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"? — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Length
Is this article too short? Its not in paragraph form, it also only lists six ideas (sentences.) -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it meets the three paragraph minimum. — Mike moral  ♪♫  22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)