A fact from Muwaqqit appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 February 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime articles
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 February 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Hello, I am looking forward to reviewing this article. My approach is to review the article by sections, make minor edits (links, commas) to save both of us time and effort, and then assess against the GA criteria. I am detail-oriented (perhaps nit-picky), with the intention of making the article as accessible to readers of many ages and abilities. Feel free to revert minor edits if you disagree with them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Would it help to reference the 13th century again in There is uncertainty among historians of science whether the muwaqqit was a specialised office whose holder dealt exclusively with astronomical matters, or if it was part of a broader role of a teacher (mudarris) who also worked and taught in other fields. if they were only unsure of the nature of the early office holders? –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yes, what I am trying to say is that each prayer has limits (the earliest and latest permitted times for that prayer), and the limits are defined by some daily astronomical phenomena. Updated to say this "Each day, there are five obligatory prayers with specific ranges of permitted times determined by daily astronomical phenomena". HaEr48 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I am wondering, is ilm al-miqat in this section the same as 'ilm al-miqat in the Background section? Does the leading apostrophe make a difference?–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Well spotted, they're the same. The apostrophe indicates the Arabic word starts with the ayin, but this is often omitted. Following WP:MOSAR I updated them to consistently have apostrophe. HaEr48 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I would update the links if I understood the approach.
In the introduction, see: Syria and Egypt were the major centres of muwaqqit activity in these centuries, while the office spread to Palestine, Hejaz, Tunis, and Yemen.
In this section, see: If the office of the muwaqqit indeed originated in Egypt, it soon spread to Syria and Palestine.
And also in this section, see: By the end of the fourteenth century, the activity of the muwaqqits had been recorded in Egypt, Syria, Palestine, the Hejaz (including Mecca, and Medina), Tunis, and Yemen.
Further: According to King, there is no evidence of muwaqqit activity in more easterly parts of the Islamic world, including Iraq, Iran, India and Central Asia.
Could you go through the article and check the links for countries, cities, and places set them consistently (e.g., first instance, introduction and first instance in the body of the article)?–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Updated, let me know what you think. I try to be consistent with only linking first instance in the intro and first instance in the body. I omit links when the best I can do is link to the modern day country (like Yemen) per MOS:OVERLINK. HaEr48 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
The article is very well-written, which made it very easy to review. It is stable, neutral, focused, and has relevant and properly tagged content. The content is properly cited from reliable sources. There is no evidence of copyvio issues. There are a couple of comments or suggestions for minor edits.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
.jpg){kind=small}
Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
· 
· 
