Wording and Clarification, + lack of source 

I have two changes that I suggest for the article:

'Parapsychology involves research that does not rely upon scientific modeling'.

This is an unsourced statement, and is a fairly bold statement to make. Whilst it may be true, I would suggest a source be found with examples of said methodological flaws, otherwise it should be removed.

'Critics such as Ray Hyman suggest that parapsychology has no methodological flaws that can explain apparently the successful experimental results that parapsychologists attribute to paranormal explanations, and various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience.'

Now this seems to be intended to be against parapsychology, yet the passage reads that there are no methodological flaws that can explain the results. Given that most attacks on parapsychology are aimed at exposing results as fake or due to methodological issues, this doesn't make sense.

Additionally, 'apparently the successful experimental results' does not read well. If this is intended to be a criticism, then perhaps it should be phrased 'the apparently successful experimental results'.

Finally 'various critics have classed the field as pseudoscience'. I do not have as much of an issue with this, yet the sources given include Hyman and Wiseman, both noted skeptics. Whilst their credentials are solid, the later part of the section names them as independent researchers, which is open to debate given their a priori stance that psychic phenomena do not exist.

Thank you,