(This is very much related to Andrew's post Improving editing suggestions etiquette, but with a different emphasis. Hope it's OK to have this as a separate question.)
Now that everyone can suggest edits to any post, it might be helpful to discuss how we handle the edit suggestions. The cause for my question is this post: Use (or redefine a) \tag command in text mode. It seems that an anonymous user proposed to fix the typo in "pair of parensis" (which is good), and the suggestion was to change it to "pair of parenthese". This still contains a typo and hence shouldn't have been approved, but that actually isn't the point I want to make:
I think the main point is that the edit suggestion didn't go far enough; just this one edit couldn't really improve the post: There's inline code to mark, there are more typos, the wording could be improved. I'm not demanding that a proposed edit has to catch every single bit, but such incomplete edits don't justify bumping the question half a day later (and moving it one step closer to community wiki).
So here's what I propose: For anonymous incomplete suggested edits, reject the edit and make a more complete edit. Same for very incomplete edit suggestions by registered users. If you want to give the registered user credit, have a look at the meta question mentioned above: Improving editing suggestions etiquette.
(Personally, I see pros and cons in suggested edits: On the one hand they can and do help improving our site, on the other hand I think it takes more effort to see if an edit was good than doing it myself.)