It was good to see Gonzalez ranked so highly, the more I read about him the better he seems to have been. The 1954 Le Mans race has a shout at being just about the greatest entry list of any race ever - I think every GP winner from something like 1949 to 1959 was in it. And it was the Pampas Bull who shared the win.
Two huge misses from the list are Chiron and Fagioli. I can only assume that drivers were ranked solely on what they showed in their WC careers, including potential, rather than their past glories.
I would seriously question some of the rankings though. Pironi that high up? Did he ever consistently beat a team-mate? Massa's near-miss in 2008 reflects a) how good the Ferrari was and b) how bent the FIA was, Massa wouldn't have been even close to Hamilton without Mosley's cheating. Doesn't belong. Von Trips, to be blunt, in F1 terms, was a one season wonder in a car that was so good even a first-timer could win a race, may as well include Irvine. Mind you, Barrichello was included, so, yes, may definitely as well include Irvine...
But at least it was some food for thought - and one way to think about it was where to slot in the actual champions. Only Moss would be in the top half of a combined list, and he'd be pretty close to the very top; Gilles might be about half-way as well, with only Gurney, Ickx and perhaps Peterson as others who were better than at least a couple of champs - maybe Kubica would have been amongst them had he not been so selfish.
And praise where it's due. Someone had put a lot of thought into the little capsules. Instead of the bog-standard "he drove in x Grands Prix and came 3rd in 19xx", they were different snippets - quotes from other drivers, a precis of an individual drive of note and so on. A very interesting way of doing it and something for the diehard to appreciate.