The current article contains the sentence: "The Muktikā Upanishad's list of 108 Upanishads groups the first 13 as mukhya...". This contains multiple citations. But this is not accurate. The Muktikā Upanishad specifically groups the first ten together. In verse 27 it reads "tathāpyasiddhaṃ cejjñānaṃ daśopaniṣadaṃ paṭha", i.e. "if knowledge is not got from it [the Mandukya], then study the Ten Upanishads". These 10 are then grouped together in a single verse (v. 30): "īśakenakaṭhapraśnamuṇḍamāṇḍūkyatittiriḥ aitareyaṃ ca chāndogyaṃ bṛhadāraṇyakaṃ tathā". Those are the 10 "Mukhya" Upanishad then. The other three sometimes counted as Mukhya by some scholars are listed in the Muktikā as numbers 14, 24 and 25. While they may be counted as Mukhya by some scholars, they are not counted as such by the Muktikā Upanishad. It sets apart 10 Upanishads.
I've held off on editing this because of the multiple citations, but I do think it needs to be reworded to be accurate to the source material. References to more than 10 Mukhya Upanishads should not be referenced as coming from the Muktikā, but rather from later scholars.