user43480: Here is an example of a recent suggested edit to a poor question that had just been closed. The user editing the question is not the user who asked the question, and doesn't appear to be editing it in order to put it in the reopen queue. Generally, I like the idea of encouraging (and approving) even small edits that could improve a post, but this particular kind of edit (small edit to a still poor question) has come across the review queue quite a lot lately.
My perspective: the edit does slightly improve the question, but it also bumps it and puts it in the reopen queue, without addressing the problems in the substance of the question. So, while it slightly improves the question, it does the opposite to the site in general (makes it slightly worse). I rejected the edit, and left a comment to that effect, in part hoping to discourage this behavior. What do we think, should we approve edits like this, or reject them.
EDIT:
On further review (and after a large volume of edits by the same user in a short period of time), it seems that, in addition to bumping poor questions, a number of these edits introduce new errors. 

user3340: Right now, we can just reject the superfluous edits to closed questions citing "no improvement whatsoever" as the reason.

user22057: In principle I think @cell0 is doing a good job — it’s beneficial to have the English tidied up, as I feel that maintaining high standards helps those for whom English is not a first language (or those who do not understand that communication of ideas requires precision in language). 
The problem, as I see it, is that new posts are being swamped by old and generally uninteresting posts, which is not really fair to new posters. I’m almost tempted to say “let us know when you’ve finished so we can come out to play again”. In fact I encountered this problem myself when I decided to try to rationalize the metabolism tags. I left off when I realized that so many old posts were coming to the fore (and have never finished). It might be good if there were some way of adding tags without this happening.
However if we wait for changes in the way SE operates, it seems that we will wait for ever, so I propose the following conspiracy solution or delaying tactic.
All of us here who can approve edits refrain from doing so for edits of old posts by @cell0. Except one of us. That one would be one of the mods, chosen among themselves, who would approve a maximum of just one edit a day from said user. That way his edits would eventually be considered and approved (if appropriate) but not in a way that swamped new posts. He would just have to wait, but as all of these posts are very old, no harm would be done, and the list postings would be improved eventually.
Of course any user with sufficient cred could break the conspiracy, but we could encourage anyone in this category to join.

user16866: I don't think all edits on closed questions need to be for the sake of reopening a post. The post in question was clearly poorly written, and the proposed edit (which I further improved) improved the language and clarity of the post. This might encrouage the OP to further edit or might clarify the question if later edited. (Also, although the reopen vote will fail, the OP can choose to vote to reopen their post after a significant edit on their own part at a different time.)
I would agree that users don't need to go through all of our closed questions to edit them, but in my experience, this is not a common behavior. Most edits are made on open posts. 
Remembering being a new user hungry to build rep to become more active here, editing is the easiest way to 1st get involved (in a way that conditions users to become active in moderation as well!). Promoting new users to edit posts also lets them see both positively and negatively received posts that might result in better first posts on their part. I don't see an issue helping a new user build rep through these practices, even if it is on a closed question. If said user only went through to edit closed, poorly-written questions, then I think a quick message could be sent their way and perhaps some of their edits be denied to discourage this "shortcut" method to rep building.  But to be honest, sometimes we pile up a ton of clutter on questions that higher rep users don't have time (or take the time) to address. 

43480: <p><a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/review/suggested-edits/55554">Here</a> is an example of a recent suggested edit to a <a href="https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/81925/how-do-biologist-discover-informations-from-fossils">poor question</a> that had just been closed. The user editing the question is not the user who asked the question, and doesn't appear to be editing it in order to put it in the reopen queue. Generally, I like the idea of encouraging (and approving) even small edits that could improve a post, but this particular kind of edit (small edit to a still poor question) has come across the review queue quite a lot lately.</p>

<p>My perspective: the edit does slightly improve the question, but it also bumps it and puts it in the reopen queue, without addressing the problems in the substance of the question. So, while it slightly improves the question, it does the opposite to the site in general (makes it slightly worse). I rejected the edit, and left a comment to that effect, in part hoping to discourage this behavior. What do we think, should we approve edits like this, or reject them.</p>

<p>EDIT:
On further review (and after a large volume of edits by the same user in a short period of time), it seems that, in addition to bumping poor questions, a number of these edits introduce new errors. </p>
 3340: <p>Right now, we can just reject the superfluous edits to closed questions citing "no improvement whatsoever" as the reason.</p>
 22057: <p>In principle I think @cell0 is doing a good job — it’s beneficial to have the English tidied up, as I feel that maintaining high standards helps those for whom English is not a first language (or those who do not understand that communication of ideas requires precision in language). </p>

<p>The problem, as I see it, is that new posts are being swamped by old and generally uninteresting posts, which is not really fair to new posters. I’m almost tempted to say “let us know when you’ve finished so we can come out to play again”. In fact I encountered this problem myself when I decided to try to rationalize the metabolism tags. I left off when I realized that so many old posts were coming to the fore (and have never finished). It might be good if there were some way of adding tags without this happening.</p>

<p>However if we wait for changes in the way SE operates, it seems that we will wait for ever, so I propose the following <strong>conspiracy solution or delaying tactic</strong>.</p>

<p>All of us here who can approve edits refrain from doing so for edits of old posts by @cell0. Except one of us. That one would be one of the mods, chosen among themselves, who would approve a maximum of <em>just one edit a day</em> from said user. That way his edits would eventually be considered and approved (if appropriate) but not in a way that swamped new posts. He would just have to wait, but as all of these posts are very old, no harm would be done, and the list postings would be improved eventually.</p>

<p>Of course any user with sufficient cred could break the conspiracy, but we could encourage anyone in this category to join.</p>
 16866: <p>I don't think all edits on closed questions need to be for the sake of reopening a post. The post in question was clearly poorly written, and the proposed edit (which I further improved) improved the language and clarity of the post. This might encrouage the OP to further edit or might clarify the question if later edited. (Also, although the reopen vote will fail, the OP can choose to vote to reopen their post after a significant edit on their own part at a different time.)</p>

<p>I would agree that users don't need to go through all of our closed questions to edit them, but in my experience, this is not a common behavior. Most edits are made on open posts. </p>

<p>Remembering being a new user hungry to build rep to become more active here, editing is the easiest way to 1st get involved (in a way that conditions users to become active in moderation as well!). Promoting new users to edit posts also lets them see both positively and negatively received posts that might result in better first posts on their part. I don't see an issue helping a new user build rep through these practices, even if it is on a closed question. If said user only went through to edit closed, poorly-written questions, then I think a quick message could be sent their way and perhaps some of their edits be denied to discourage this "shortcut" method to rep building.  But to be honest, sometimes we pile up a ton of clutter on questions that higher rep users don't have time (or take the time) to address. </p>
