I attempted to edit a question by reorganising the question and also giving a name to a link in the question, but I'm not sure why it was claimed that "This edit is incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post." - I don't believe that I was trying to answer or comment on a post. If you'd like to see, the question is here, and the suggested edit review is here.
I think some reviewers had the "What? Is all that really necessary?" response to your edit which may have somehow influenced them to reject it. As to picking “an attempt to reply to or comment on an existing post” as the reason for rejection (which is obviously incorrect by the way), I don't really know why (it might be due to lack of a fitting option? I'm not at the level to review suggested edits)
Let me explain.
Now, prior to your edit, the wording of the question expresses the OP's intent pretty clearly, and I don't see major formatting or grammatical issues – certainly not one that warrants a major rewrite.
Minor edits, say separating the code in sub-question like so
var myInstance = MyConstructor.construct(myArray);
How did this line of code invoke function
MyConstructor()? I know if I use
var myInstance =new MyConstructor();, it will invoke function MyConstructor(). But how did this code
would probably be sufficient and readily approved.
On the other hand, major edits like rewriting the entire question (when the question is already ok meaning-wise, formatting-wise, and grammar-wise, but not great) might trigger a more polarized response.
- Some might say, "It looks much more readable after the edit. I like it."
- While others might say, "The question was ok before. it didn't need a complete rewrite"
- Some might even think such degree of editing to be out of line (a complete rewrite implies that something was a complete mess to begin with).
I don't think there was anything terrible about your edit, and I might have approved it myself (depending on my mood). However, it doesn't really surprise me that it was rejected. The reviewers probably saw three things that are usually big red flags in a review:
You introduced what appears at first glance to be a new question in the introductory text at the beginning of the original question. This text didn't appear at all in the original question at all, and even if it did conform to the OP's intent, that kind of thing is likely to be rejected as a radical change or invalid edit.
You completely reformatted the actual questions near the end. This is valid, but it produces a big wall of green and red for the reviewers, which may again earn a radical change / invalid edit vote.
Your edit comments are not very descriptive of the changes you made. If you had detailed, "Added clarifying introductory text with correctly formatted link; corrected grammar and made questions easier to understand" It would've helped the reviewers understand what's really going on in the edit. Without this many editors won't take the time to thoroughly read through the changes.
If you had just one of these issues alone, the edit probably would've been approved—I've seen much worse edits get approved in the past. I believe it was the combination of these factors that caused it to be rejected.
Your edit should not have been rejected.
Yes, you changed a lot, but a lot had to be changed, and the meaning was not altered, while format and readability were improved greatly as a result of your work.
(In cases like these, it can be useful to make it extra-clear in the comment to your edit that the meaning and intention of the post were not altered by the edit, to make it easier for the reviewers to see this. But it's ultimately the reviewers' responsibility to look closely at what you've changed.)