Sometimes I suggest an edit even on an SE site on which I have few reputation points, just to improve readability. In such cases the edit awaits review by a user with more reputation.
But here's the thing: those edits get denied quite often. And guess who the denier is in the vast majority of those cases. Yes, the person who wrote the post in the first place!
And those evaluations unsurprisingly can be quite lacking in impartiality. The larger the ego behind the words, the more so. There is a reason why authors and editors in the publishing world are separate people with separate professions.
Wouldn't it benefit the overall Q&A quality of the community if such reviews were limited to more (likely to be) objective 3rd party users?
Example: I noticed this question a little earlier, and was surprised that the Mars rover Perseverance had seemingly broken down, only to realize a minute later that that sentence was merely intended as a hypothetical scenario. As a suggested edit, I added an "if" to make that intent clear. But, as you've no doubt guessed by now, that effort was shot down immediately by the OP with the reason: "The edit does not improve the quality of the post. Changes to the content are unnecessary or make the post more confusing."