As one of the "Reject" votes, I can give you my perspective, but bear in mind I speak only for myself.
Basically, if the edit had consisted solely of the attribution edits, I would have accepted it. My problem was with the start and end where you changed the OP's text.
"Sound" in place of "audio" and "images" in place of "video" seemed to be purely personal preference, and IMO made the point less clear. ("Images," without qualification, are in my experience always static images; "video" is moving pictures. Similarly, "sound" does not denote the information content of "audio"; sound could just be the hiss of static, and "speech" seems an overly specific type of audio information.) In any event, the OP's meaning is perfectly clear in the original text; the change does not improve the clarity.
At the end, changing the structure and emphasis of the closing argument is also (again IMO) taking too much liberty with the OP's words.
I find the review tools are a bit lacking when it comes to reviewing edits; it would be ideal if the "Improve Edit" workflow allowed stepping through the diff and approving changes line-by-line. Unfortunately in this case, with the tools available it would have been too difficult to start from your changes and try to roll back the stylistic changes.