user28022: I suggested this edit and it was rejected/edited, with the following message attached:

This edit did not correct critical issues with the post - view the revision history to see what should have been changed.

Naturally, I looked at the revision history to see what I'd missed. Surprisingly, almost no real content had been changed from my edit. The two biggest changes I saw were changing "deserts" to "desserts" and adding a period after one of the instances of "Dr," which, I acknowledge, I missed. 
However, since literally every other change I proposed was left alone (aside from choosing to use "will" instead of "would," which does absolutely nothing to change the meaning of the post and works just fine either way), I don't see why this was rejected and edited, rather than simply improved. I was under the impression that Rejection + Editing was due to the edit being inherently bad, while acknowledging that edits to the original posts were necessary. Was my proposed edit really that bad?

user19307: The reviewer was probably thinking along the lines of the removal of the link being in conflict with the author's intent. Given the age of the post, it is unlikely the original poster was going to go back and edit that link back in.  Thus, it seems the reviewer made a mistake. Clearly the reviewer should have reviewed the edit more carefully. 

28022: <p>I suggested <a href="https://anime.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/32925">this edit</a> and it was rejected/edited, with the following message attached:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>This edit did not correct critical issues with the post - view the revision history to see what should have been changed.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Naturally, I looked at the revision history to see what I'd missed. Surprisingly, almost no real content had been changed from my edit. The two biggest changes I saw were changing "deserts" to "desserts" and adding a period after one of the instances of "Dr," which, I acknowledge, I missed. </p>

<p>However, since literally every other change I proposed was left alone (aside from choosing to use "will" instead of "would," which does absolutely nothing to change the meaning of the post and works just fine either way), I don't see why this was rejected and edited, rather than simply <em>improved</em>. I was under the impression that Rejection + Editing was due to the edit being inherently bad, while acknowledging that edits to the original posts were necessary. Was my proposed edit <em>really</em> that bad?</p>
 19307: <p>The reviewer was probably thinking along the lines of the removal of the link being in conflict with the author's intent. Given the age of the post, it is unlikely the original poster was going to go back and edit that link back in.  Thus, it seems the reviewer made a mistake. Clearly the reviewer should have reviewed the edit more carefully. </p>
