When deciding whether to accept an edit or not, you seem to feel that the rule is
- is the changed part better than the old part?
Since a good link is better than a broken link, it's your position that the edit should have been approved. What you're not understanding from the comment conversation is that you are wrong.
The rule is:
- is the post as a whole sufficiently better now to justify the time spent reviewing the edit?
Say a post has three broken links, and you fix only one. That's not good enough. The edit should be rejected as too minor. Say it has two broken links and some typos or bad grammar, and you fix only the links. Again, not good enough. Those with full edit privileges can go and fix just one aspect should they feel the desire to, but those whose edits must be reviewed are obliged to take care of all that is wrong with the post, or leave it alone.
You don't like that guideline, and think the reviewers were wrong to reject the edit as too minor. Your arguments seem to consist of asserting that the links were broken, and that capitalization is irrelevent. Repeating those statements over and over will change nothing. Suggested edits that are too minor will be rejected. I hope the suggester learns to fix all that is wrong with the post. I hope you end up with a happier understanding of the edit review system.