When reviewing the questions marked for reopening, I quite often wonder why that question was marked for reopening. For example, I've seen questions closed as duplicates, and the OP added a comment or edit why this question is different to the one linked. In this case a vote-to-reopen makes perfect sense to me.
But consider this question: Dividing a page into several horizontal minipages. I can't see a reason why someone would like this question to be reopened. It also doesn't seem to have been edited, such that e.g. a simple tag edit perhaps could have triggered the reopen voting automatically (I'm not even sure if it actually can be triggered automatically).
Or another example: Submitting paper to arXiv. This question had been closed and then was marked for reopening. I voted against reopening because I couldn't see a reason for it. However, this question is open again now, so apparently other people did see a good reason for reopening it.
So is there any way to get a hint why a question was marked for reopening? Should I prefer voting for reopening a question even if I don't see a good reason for it? Or is there at least a way to see who marked the question for reopening?
EDIT: Because there seems to be some confusion about the intends of this question, I just want to add that the question didn't aim at asking for new features (although opening a request for adding an optional reopen reason might actually be worth a try). The aim was to ask for hints or things to consider I haven't thought of when reviewing the reopen proposals.
Reviewing close proposals feels much easier to me, because there's usually a lot of information available you can use to come to a decision, like an explicit reason, links to duplicate questions, name of the user suggesting the closure, comments that lead to the proposal etc. Reopen votes apparently lack all such useful information; they often seem somewhat arbitrary to me. Hence my question how to gather more information to come to a reasonable decision.