Wikipedia:Metacoverage
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community. |
Metacoverage is coverage of coverage. On Wikipedia, it refers to article text that explicitly describes the simple, obvious fact that a given subject had been mentioned in sources or a particular type of source, sometimes without necessarily mentioning what those sources have said about that subject. If a subject has received only trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources, an editor (or AI chatbot) might use metacoverage in an attempt to mask its non-notability.
Examples
[edit]Uncontroversial statements
[edit]
Fastened Loose Holdings was profiled in media outlets like The Foo Chronicle and Raw Bar Digest, which reported that it had earned over $15 million in the third quarter.[1][2]
Fastened Loose Holdings was reported to have earned over $15 million in the third quarter.[1][2]
Sources should be used to support statements about the subject itself, not necessarily the simple fact that it had received coverage in those sources at all. If reliable sources disagree on what is true, each side of the disagreement should be given due weight based on the proportion of coverage in reliable sources, whereas if reliable sources agree on what is true, it would be neutral to state such propositions as facts in Wikipedia's voice.
In-text attribution
[edit] The Case of the Suit was reviewed by critics from publications such as Literature Lodge and The Foo Chronicle, which highlighted the novel's ability to captivate readers.[1][2]
Paige Turner of Literature Lodge described The Case of the Suit as "a page-turner". In an op-ed for The Foo Chronicle, Hank Yu said it was "difficult to put down" in an op-ed for The Foo Chronicle.[1][2]
Although it is appropriate to attribute reviews to sources, article text should summarize what the critics who made those reviews have said, not just name-drop the employers of the critics who reviewed it.