I recently encountered this relatively straightforward question on the rules of cricket.
If you look at the edit history, you will notice that I had to make extensive efforts to formatting, grammar and phrasing to coax out the underlying question. You'll notice that one commenter clearly saw two orthogonal questions at first glance (as did I), and it took careful reading to see that there was really only one question - two interrogative sentences were used to contrast two different related events.
It's clear to me that there is now a question, and as someone who has no idea about the rules of cricket it appears to be a very good question.
What level of editing to questions is acceptable and expected?
Should the question have been downvoted and flagged for closing (rather than edited), when after a few attempts at reading it was obvious there was a single, answerable question there?
As an aside, while the comments are all constructive (ie. please edit to one clear question, please add a link, please consider your grammar), does anyone feel that they could have been delivered in a slightly more friendly manner, given that the asker appears to be a new user and both their written English (demonstrably) and English comprehension may be lacking compared to other users of the site?
The criticism of the question is all fair and constructive, but I feel that new users to the site may be intimidated a little by rapid-fire feedback, particularly given the loss of tone over a written medium.