This question already has an answer here:
I just can't fathom how terrible edits like this get through - all three reviewers approved. All he did was bold (instead of block-quote) the error message, and change one barely comprehensible sentence into something equally incomprehensible, leaving lots of other minor problems there (which I have subsequently fixed).
Do we need to introduce some kind of penalty for suggesting terrible edits, and to the approvers who blindly let them pass? Obviously the audits aren't keeping people honest.
This is probably a duplicate, but nothing obvious popped up immediately. I saw this question but it seems to deal with the opposite case - most of the problems were fixed but not all. It is also talking about the situation where a user is trying to improve an edit and it is approved right out from under them.