Well this is why the others were eliminated from contention:
Fangio/Moss - the 50s were very uncompetitive compared to other eras, so it is hard to rate the best drivers from that era. But the relative lack of competition removed these two from contention (a bit harsh, maybe). Moss also never won a championship, of course.
Ascari - as he only really raced for four (short) seasons, there is not enough data for him to be the best.
Clark - only ever won in dominant cars. Never had a season where he excelled in an uncompetitive car (again, a bit harsh).
Lauda - wasn't the outright fastest driver of his era.
Villeneuve - never really challenged for a championship (apart from 1979, which he lost to his teammate), so it is unknown if he would have been able to win one.
Prost - again, wasn't the outright fastest of his era, and also struggled in the rain.
Senna/Schumacher - obviously, Suzuka 1990 and Jerez 1997 should rule out these two.
Alonso - spent too much of his career driving in the midfield. This was mainly his own fault, for being difficult in Ferrari and McLaren, and his return to McLaren was a bad decision.
Hamilton - considered the second best ever, but did have a horrible 2011 season, and made multiple mistakes in 2016. Stewart never made these mistakes.
I think that much information is fair without it becoming a form of piracy. It's no different to what you might explain to a friend. I think the reasons for 'punishing' Fangio, Clark and Hamilton are a bit harsh. I would consider those three, along with Stewart and Schumacher, the top five of all time. Schumacher is probably the fastest driver ever, the one who would win the championship if every driver in history raced each other in equal cars, but Jerez 1997 should exclude him from being the greatest of all time. Here's a mathematical viewpoint on this debate, which agrees with the Autosport article to an extent:
https://f1metrics.wordpress.com/2019...trics-top-100/