UPDATE: Version 2.1 of the trial is now live. The intention is for the last voter who closes a question to link to the trial in lieu of the link appearing in the notice of closure. Here's a template that can be pasted directly as a comment:
See [Notes to Reviewers](https://english.meta.stackexchange.com/q/7913/142322)
Low-quality questions (LQQ) serve as a disincentive for visitors and regulars to seek or contribute high-quality answers at ELU. We therefore place an LQQ on hold for a grace period, reopening it if it sufficiently improves and deleting it if not. The OP of a closed question should bear the onus of proof that their edits make their questions worth reconsidering, but in practice, that burden falls almost exclusively on reviewers.
On the other hand, on-hold notices can appear final to visitors. It can feel off-putting to find that the community deems one's posts unworthy of attention. Closing a question is objectively an invitation to improve the question, but invitations should sound like "here's where to go and what to do" rather than "go away until you improve". The OP may make a case on the meta site for reopening, but they are only told the policy if they ask.
The core of this feature request is to address both issues by giving the OP of a closed question some transparency and guidance about the process of reopening their question. This is an explicit invitation to (re)engage to have their posted question answered. It also helps reviewers of the reopen queue: it's easier, less frustrating and more accurate to read what the OP thinks s/he did to improve the question than it is for each reviewer to piece the clues together from edit trails and comment trails. Here's the gist of what I'm suggesting should be on the close/on-hold notice:
After editing your question, please note in comments or [notes to reviewers (link)] how your edits improve the question. Your question will be reopened if it gains 5 reopen votes.
In the worst case, OP behaviour doesn't change at all. However, the improvement to the quality of our ELU process, namely, greater transparency of the reopen process, is justification enough to expand the boiler-plate notices.
In the best case, the OP raises their own question to a high quality and stay on to contribute, so we have a better site and feel welcoming to good company.
Note: The previous version of this feature request can be found here.