First of all, the edit was approved, but a very high-rep user rejected it because it
Disguises the author's non-fluency in English
While it did (sort of) fix other major flaws with the question (it had no MathJax), I don't really see how Disguising an author's non-fluency in English is a reason to reject an edit, isn't rewording questions to be more clear and easier to read a major reason for editing?
I don't see any harm done by the edit. Hiding the authors disability to write fluent English isn't a reason to reject an edit since the site is not language-related.
The edit removes fluff, makes the question clear and uses proper formatting. All good stuff.
In addition to Patrick's good answer, I would like to add my opinion and suggestion.
In my opinion, the user that rejected the edit is wrong and has misused his review powers.
Taken from the Edit Questions And Answers privilege page:
When should I edit posts?
Any time you feel you can make the post better, and are inclined to do so. Editing is encouraged!
Some common reasons to edit are:
- to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
- to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
In this respect, suggested edits are no different from edits by high rep users. Your edit did fix grammatical or spelling mistakes and clarified the meaning of a post without changing it. The only time when this isn't right to make such edits is when the post can't be salvaged, or is otherwise off topic, neither of those is true in your case.
So I believe the reviewer who rejected it should be contacted somehow (comment, chat, etc) and be alerted to his mistake, better by someone from that site whom he already knows. Since nothing of this is set in stone and there's no official rule against rejecting such edits, there's a good chance he will understand and won't keep rejecting valid edits.
