Apparently that article has a lot of headwords (see screenshot below). (I'm guessing it's rather old and the version confirms that: 2002-08-08; if the resource were updated with our current standards, its tagging would be cleaned up.)
if the resource were updated with our current standards, its tagging would be cleaned up.
I have requested that it's type of Monograph be reviewed - seeing that I'm not the only one to use it as a Concordance[:)].
