I think there’s a good possibility that an error ( of omission ) was introduced by the writer of the article, due to confusion caused by a simultaneous occultation and eclipse.
That is, the writer may have failed to mention the lunar eclipse because he didn’t realize that an eclipse event was being described in addition to the occultation.
That’s my theory, anyway.
Thanks; THAT sounds reasonable. The way it was written, taken at face value, just didn’t gel.