That s quite all right it has been an interesting process and seems to have helped the article along some more even without the green blob I don t think there will be a next round as if one sidelines Peel as a source then two thirds of the subject s career don t have sufficient sources to give anything resembling proper coverage Tabloid newspapers from the 1960s droning on about how wonderful he was and a handful of tabloid newspaper journalists from the 1990s droning on about how wonderful in their personal experience he wasn t Plus a BBC documentary that has a fair amount of footage of him but only provides a couple of actual hard facts This was how the article looked before I started working on it mainly authored by User Emeraude who duly showed up at the GA review The problems with that version were what led to a discussion on the talk page where it was suggested Peel s book should be used to fill in the holes and provide some neutral coverage with appropriate weight for what the subject was actually notable for