How is Wikipedia's example of an unbalanced AVL tree really unbalanced?

The image above is from "Wikipedia's entry on AVL trees" which Wikipedia indicates is unbalanced. How is this tree not balanced already? Here's a quote from the article:

The balance factor of a node is the height of its right subtree minus the height of its left subtree and a node with balance factor 1, 0, or -1 is considered balanced. A node with any other balance factor is considered unbalanced and requires rebalancing the tree. The balance factor is either stored directly at each node or computed from the heights of the subtrees.

Both the left and right subtrees have a height of 4. The right subtree of the left tree has a height of 3 which is still only 1 less than 4. Can someone explain what I'm missing?

From stackoverflow somas1

• Node 76 is unbalanced, for example, because its right subtree is of height 0 and the left is of height 3.

  JesperE : I think the point is that a tree is only balanced if all subtrees in it are.

  Joe Philllips : All leaf/child nodes need to be balanced.
  From JesperE

• Intuitively, it's because it's not as small as possible. e.g., 12 should be the parent of 9 and 14. As it is, 9 has no left sub-tree so it's out of balance. A tree is a hierarchical data structure so a rule like "balanced" often apply to every node and not just the root node.

  You're correct the root node is balanced, but not all the nodes of the tree are.

  From Tony Lee

• To be balanced, every node in the tree must, either,

  • have no children, (be a "leaf" node)
  • Have two children.

  • Or, if it has only one child, that child must be a leaf.

    In the chart you post, 9, 54 & 76 violate the last rule.

  Properly balanced, the tree would look like:

  Root: 23
  (23) -> 14 & 67
  (14) -> 12 & 17
  (12) -> 9
  (17) -> 19
  (67) -> 50 & 72
  (50) -> 54
  (72) -> 76
  

  Kena : That's much clearer!
  From James Curran