The "critical reception of the series" section has been amended to reflect data taken directly from the series.  It does not speculate on reasons for the data, beyond identifying trends.  That the wife of the series editor appeared in the series, where the series editor is the primary screener of selections (but does not make final selections), is a notable fact, however one interprets it.  Given that Lehman has indicated thousands, if not tens of thousands, of poems are read for each issue of the anthologyand only 75 get inthe selection of his wife, who does not meet the notability criteria for a writer on Wikipedia, and has not published extensively elsewhere, is relevant to criticism of the series. The same can be said for those who have assisted Lehman with the production of the series, as well as those who have worked with or studied under Lehman.  Whether or not the trends are dispositive is beside the point (though mathematically, they are "statistically significant"); the point is that criticism of the series is based on this information.  While the blogosphere may not a preferred citation, previous edits of this entry prove that if it were necessary to establish (for the "critical reception" portion of the entry, not the entry proper) the above criticism as pervasive in the only sphere it is alleged (in the article) to be pervasivethe blogosphereit would be a matter of picking which high-traffic links (of the dozens available) to select, and not whether any could be found.  On the blogosphere, it is simply the case that discussion of the BAP does not occur outside the context, or exclusive of the backdrop, of persistent allegations of cronyism against the series, and that it is the data that fuels this speculation, not whimsy or fancy.