Or "review link" for that matter. It isn't all that uncommon to have an interesting story that links to a page that is just repeating content from a better and more complete source.

The solution is just to flag these and post the better link since you can't change the link after the fact which makes sense. I'm sometimes guilty of this though sometimes I do think there is editorial content which adds to the original story.

Moderators can update the headline and link; fixing in place can be better than another submission on the same topic, because it aggregates upvotes and conversation in a single place.

Given how rarely it happens (though it does happen) and the volume of links, I suspect there just aren't enough moderators. It might therefore be more ideal to give the community the tools to enforce.

Okay, so why not have something that submits "better link and headline" and that can be voted up? Pass a threshold and the original headline and link get swapped out.

I haven't really found "misleading headlines" to be much of a problem. I don't really see a correlation between adjusting article titles and improving the discourse on HN.