The same Stanford entry devotes long sections to objections to abduction, including that it isn’t a distinct form of inference at all and that “best” is hopelessly vague. Isn’t citing only the supportive lines selective?

The entry does canvass the objections, and the honest summary is that the status of abduction is debated among philosophers of science while its use is nearly universal. The vagueness of best is real. Lipton’s answer, explanatory virtues such as scope, simplicity, and fit with background knowledge, is the standard way of making it precise, and it is the way the resurrection argument on this site tries to proceed: name what each hypothesis explains and fails to explain, rather than declare a winner.