Could you explain what explanation you think is missing from this article?  There are extensive wikilinks to articles on the details of the science, as you know.  TS 

@Tony: Links are generally bad when it is possible to give an explanation in the body of the article.  Any science article should give a clear and coherent and succinct explanation of why scientists believe x.   In this case (correct me if I'm wrong), the reasons why scientists believe the global warming hypothesis (namely the hypothesis that the earth is continuing to warm, and that the increase in temperature in the last 100 years is not merely a random accident) are

 Empirical evidence: The temperature record, which suggests that the increase is not merely a random accident.  
 Theoretical model: Radiative forcing by anthropogenically introduced factors (CO2, mainly)
 Theoretical model: Feedback

As to what is missing. There is no explanation in the article about the statistics of temperature records, nor about the need (very important in science) to distinguish random fluctuations from changes caused by an underlying process. For example, current economic theory, the Efficient Market Hypothesis holds that there are no such things as trends in stock markets - the 'trends' you see are just the result of humans trying to see patterns in events that are essentially random.  A lot of that theory involves careful definition of randomness, and types of randomness.  I don't see an equivalent section in this article. 

The explanation in the article of radiative forcing is somewhat better, but goes into unnecessary detail - the section on Greenhouse gases can't decide whether it is about the increase in CO2, or the effect of that increase.  The stuff on aerosols and soot tends to confuse the whole thing - that should be left to a sub-article. 

The role of feedback is hardly explained at all.  That (I believe) is an important part of the hypothesis, yet the section discussing it is a strange list of things with no obvious purpose.   There is no heading section that ties the three parts of the hypothesis together.

The section 'climate models' is all rather uncertain.  It needs a summary at the beginning to explain what scientists conclude from their use of models, and perhaps some material on the uncertainty that is attached to models.