no your expanation does not explain why this cannot be removed the writer's notability is not a consideration only the quality of the source as defined by wp rs the first reference was not being disputed the last reference is a multiple reference to reviews of reviews regardless of the writer tertiary or worse and a reference to a wp article as i stated above and not good sources wp rs states wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources tertiary sources such as compendia encyclopedias textbooks obituaries and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion these references including the one to a wp artice itself do not fit the descriptions at wp rs and need to be removed wp pseudoscience is clearly defined by wp and needs no repetition of its definition especially inside the same sentence and in this article the sentence structure is analogous to stuttering and is ridiculous