I seldom give this kind of feedback because it’s usually unwelcome unless asked for. But since you asked... :)
I think there are a couple of elements that play into the article not getting curated. The first is the title, specifically the word magical. It reminds me of a thing Google says in their ad regulations. Google says not to use “fantastical” claims unless they can be proven.
Little story — one of the words Google does not permit in ads is “best” unless you can prove it. One of my clients was featured in Forbes “best in America” feature, so I used the phrase “best in America according to Forbes”. When they challenged my ad, I sent them the link to Forbes. They accepted the ad.
Likewise, if you’d found some medical doctor or scientist that uses that word for magnesium, and used a title like “Doctor claims magnesium is magical” and cited the source, they likely would have had no problem with it. But as the title stands, I think curators would see it as a violation of the rule that says “titles that are overtly click-baity won’t be curated.”
The second thing I think hurt your article’s chance at curation is that it contains no citations to facts in the very beginning, which is likely all the curator looked at. That’s something they mention several times in the curation guideline — cite whenever possible.
You did have some citations towards the end of the article, but I wonder if the curators got that far or whether they looked at the title and the very beginning and saw it as a “personal opinion” piece and didn’t look further.
With 30 curators, I’m not sure they read an entire piece before deciding. You know?
There are a few places you could have added links to citations earlier in the story. For example, the fact that magnesium deficiency increases stress, or that green vegetables have less nutrients these days because of soil depletion. Many more, I’m sure, but a handful of links to verifiable info early in the piece goes a long way to helping with curation.
And lastly — I have noticed that they seem to be leaning towards a more journalistic style of writing, which you’ll see if you look at their in house publications. Seems to me that they lean heavy on journalistic writing, instructional writing, and first person industrial complex because drama always works. Your piece doesn’t fall into the “styles” they tend to curate.
I could be entirely out to lunch, but I’ve found that if I write in the styles they tend to curate, I tend to get curated. All I have to do is look back over my history and see which ones get curated and there’s a distinct style. When I vary from it, I don’t get curated.
Hope that helps. Thanks for the invitation to add feedback. :)