It is a very informative article! I have a question for you, regarding how to proceed.  
 ::When some people nominate an article at GAN, they like to just get an answer (pass or fail) with helpful feedback for improvement and compliments on the article's strengths. Then they work on the article on their own time, and renominate it later if it didn't pass. But other people like to treat a GAN as a very interactive process, where the reviewer leaves detailed suggestions for change, and the nominator deals with each suggestion quickly, and the process goes back and forth until the criteria are met or until the time runs out. (Ideally, GAN reviews should only be open for about a week or two.) So my question for you is, which type of GAN review would you prefer? I can do either, but I want to do what's most helpful for you.  
 ::I feel like the article currently has many strengths (such as completeness, image use, and sourcing), but also has many shortcomings (such as organization, and clarity issues in the prose). These would have to be dealt with in order for the article to reach GA status. It will take a lot of work, I think, and I don't know how much time you have over the next week or two. Do you think you'll be able to respond to suggestions and make the needed changes in the limited time available? Or would you prefer I simply write up a full review and close the nomination? All the best, –