: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.