It literally says if you use Wisconsin’s criteria, Wisconsin comes out ahead. You’re just repeating the same argument. The only new info is the USGS puts Michigan ahead but doesn’t state the criteria used so it’s hard to say. And Wisconsin comes ahead of you count surface area and the portions of the the various great lakes residing in each state.
What? Where does it say that?
Also, The article mentions Lake Michigan, not the state
Since you weren’t specific, here’s the source paragraphs for both claims:
According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota technically has 11,842 lakes. Those lakes are defined as bodies of water 10 acres or more.
According to the Wisconsin DNR, Wisconsin has 15,074 “documented” lakes. Those are defined as bodies of water 2.2 acres or more. Of those lakes, about 6,000 are named.
15k is larger than 12k.
Last claim:
Finally, Minnesota still comes out ahead by counting surface area covered by lakes. But by adding what both states claim for Lake Superior and Michigan, Wisconsin has twice as much lake surface area.
Emphasis mine.
Did you not link the article you thought? Cause it clearly mentions both states. Michigan is definitely mentioned more than just Lake Michigan.
Your quoted segments clearly reference the different criteria (10 acres versus 2.2).
And the word “Michigan” appears exactly once in the article: in the second bit you quoted where it clearly refers to the lake.
