I'm suggesting a reject reason for when the changes a user suggests are ok but they missed other potential (and largely obvious) fixes in the same post.
This scenario is not catered for, happens frequently, and as a result reviewers are currently using the wrong reject reason, which is in turn giving false feedback/advice.
Users seeking rep and badges from suggested edits just make a quick and uncaring change without considering the rest of the post.
Reviewers then have to click "Improve" and and fix all the issues they did not see.
I know sometimes people just don't see things, myself included of course. But I often see a suggested edit and there are lots of other obvious edits which can hardly be missed if the user had any care to actually improve the post, and motivations were not badges and rep.
We already have an issue now whereby reviewers click "reject and edit" when they should have used "improve".
So it's no more of a problem introducing a potentially good reject reason, to cater for when users suggesting edits have just not taken care to edit enough - so we can educate them :)
I'm not saying we should not use the "Improve" option when reviewing suggested edits, of course if a "few" things are missed then use it. We're all here to make improvements and we, I, don't expect users to catch everything.
But if we do this when there are "many" and "obvious" improvements missed, then users are never going to learn to try a bit harder to see those other potential fixes if we do not tell them.
New Reject Reason
There were other possible improvements which were not included in this suggested edit. A suggested edit should include all potential improvements.
I'm not suggesting this would be used when a user makes a good edit and misses one or two little things, we cannot expect people to be perfect and go over posts with a fine tooth comb.
We already have "Improve Edit" for that.
This is because I often see a user has just not taken much time at all, and there are numerous and obvious other potential improvements.
The edit should be non-trivial and substantial, but more than anything should include at least all the obvious things wrong.
There are lower case "i" throughout the post, non-capitalised "ruby", many missing prepositions which degrades readability, general grammar could be improved to improve readability, some words are incorrect ("install" should be "installing") etc.
The edit changed one lowercase "i", so why not at least the rest of those if nothing else? And the preposition added was arguably not even needed.
The close reason we use for such cases as the above example is: "no improvement whatsoever", as per the reviews there (and what most people use).
However, this is factually wrong to use in such scenarios, as the edits were actually an improvement!
Also, using the description from the reject reason, the edit does make the post even a little bit easier to read and more accurate. Changes are not completely superfluous and do not actively harm readability.
Wrong message to users
We shouldn't approve such edits as the example, based on their being a good change, because we then pave the way for users to just post any old suggested edits just to get their badges and rep etc.
Even without badge/rep hunters, we should be showing users a better approach to editing, and what we want and need to improve the sites.
Suggested edits are from users under 2K, so arguably are "often" new(ish) users. And we should be telling users (especially new users) that they missed things in their edit, instead of some inaccurate and canned response to them which states "your edit is wrong".
Their edit is not wrong, they just didn't take enough time to check the rest of the post while editing something else.
If we want people to improve and help the sites, then we need to convey accurate feedback to them, not give them incorrect reasons as to why their actions were wrong.
Wrong feedback is not helping make users become better editors, or priming them to be better reviewers when their rep increases to 2k.