This deserves a deep dive into your writing because I haven't read a "not that good" article by you. On the other hand, I don't know which of your stories have or have not been curated, so I have no way to compare.

My situation has been completely different, and I know a lot of other writers who share similar experiences.

From the perspective of improving my craft, I started editing in Grammarly last fall. In that time, I've seen my intial scores rise over time from the mid 80s to the high 90s and maintained a consistently high level of "engaging" (however they define it).

As I worked through the more subtle errors, I noticed that my style evolved organically to reduce the instances of passive writing and hard-to-read sentences.

Meanwhile, other writers continue to provide a source of positive feedback as evidenced by their responses and highlights.

Despite all that, I haven't had a curated article since last September. Even that article was an ordeal, as I had to ask the staff to take another look at it.

It was a tennis article which got the thumbs up from the main columnist for Tennis Magazine and had my fans on Quora commenting that I should be writing for ESPN.

By the way, they recently uncurated my most popular story on writing, possibly because I mentioned Rolli's problems with this site.

On the other hand, a fantasy PR piece by a Trump campaign stooge got curated in spite of violating multiple curation rules:

https://medium.com/@lonshapiro/is-medium-trying-to-become-the-next-facebook-94dfb891006f

I have more than enough experience that the curators doing a terrible job, so I would welcome seeing the evidence to back up your claim.

Thanks. You're still one of my favorites here.