Actually the link indicates a different title and that
the author is Mitch Metcalf yet you have listed yourself as the author.
Isn’t that odd?
The ratings analysis was done by me.
I think there is another way to look at the post.
The OP posted his analysis & linked to the article from whence he derived his data so people can confirm the reliability of the posted data. That is a perfectly legitimate form of FR post. It would be misleading to use the original title article since his analysis is the topic of the post.
Often you seem more interested in identifying something you can complain about than in actually reviewing the posts for useful or unique content content and the likely interest of FR members.