Re Laura's comment.
I don't dispute that there are plenty of high quality articles which have had only one or two contributors. However my assumption and experience is that in general the more editors the better the quality, and I'd love to see that assumption tested by research. There may be some maximum above which quality does not rise, and there are clearly a number of gifted members of the community whose work is as good as our best crowdsourced work, especially when the crowdsourcing element is to address the minor imperfection that comes from their own blind spot. It would be well worthwhile to learn if Women's football is an exception to this, or indeed if my own confidence in crowd sourcing is mistaken
I should also add that while I wouldn't filter out minor edits you might as well filter out reverted edits and their reversion. Some of our articles are notorious vandal targets and their quality is usually unaffected by a hundred vandalisms and reversions of vandalism per annum.
Beaver before it was semi protected in Autumn 2011 being a case in point. This also feeds into Kerry's point that many assessments are outdated. An article that has been a vandalism target might have been edited a hundred times since it was assessed, and yet it is likely to have changed less than one with only half a dozen edits all of which added content.