Talk:Muwaqqit

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Muwaqqit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CaroleHenson (talk · contribs) 03:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

For the first time, I made no minor edits. Great job!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Introduction

This section is very well-written and interesting. I just have two minor questions:

• Is it possible to provide an example or summarize "traditional methods" for the introduction without going into too much detail?

  Added, both in the intro and the #Relations with the muazzin section. HaEr48 (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

Struck out after reading Duties section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the examples, this section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Background

Again, great section, just a few minor questions.

• Regarding There are five obligatory prayers each day, whose permitted times are limited by daily astronomical phenomena.[1]

• What do you think about moving "each day" to the beginning of the sentence so that "whose permitted times" directly follows "five obligatory prayers"?

• Good suggestion, done. HaEr48 (talk) 13:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• I am trying to understand "limited" in this sentence. Is a word like "determined" better in this case?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

I see. Thanks for the clarification.

• This section looks good and is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Duties

• 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)

  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)

• Excellent, thanks. This section is  Done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Salary

• This section looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Relations with the muazzin

• This section looks good, too!–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

History

• This paragraph looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In the 14th and 15th centuries

• 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)

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)

• Excellent. Thanks. I added a link for Damascus in the intro.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

After the fifteenth century

This section looks good and was very interesting... how the position changed over time.–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Calculating prayer times today

• Looks good!–CaroleHenson (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

• 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)

  Thank you for your review and your kind words, CaroleHenson. I believe I have responded to them, and let me know if you have further feedback. HaEr48 (talk) 13:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure, I will take a look.–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The edits looks great, and it passes as a GA article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and your helpful suggestions! HaEr48 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)