Personally I dislike it because I don't think it looks good (thanks to the combination of
(), all caps, redundancy* and length).
*: Redundancy when used in combination with "reopen", which it usually is. If used without "reopen", we're left with a somewhat nonsensical title containing what looks like a tag and then I suppose simply the title of the question the post is seeking to reopen.
I'd prefer simply
[Done] Reopen “optional internal interview”
The ideal way to deal with this IMO would be for there to be some functionality to detect when the target question is reopened and then prepend this text automatically without editing the post (such as when
[closed] is appended to a closed question). Manually editing the post to add this is clunky (although I suppose this isn't a big and common enough problem for such functionality to be added).
Actually the ideal way to deal with this problem is to have a closer link between discussion of the appropriateness of a question, the question and the reopen (and close?) queues. Perhaps voting to reopen (or Leave Open?) requires a motivation of why (which I'm sure has been suggested before, is fairly simple and may eliminate the need to have reopen posts on Meta). Perhaps this creates a Meta post automatically and links to it from the question and reopen queue. Perhaps it should be more of a freeform discussion (e.g. have a section of meta comments). There are a few options there.
Have we considered just closing the reopen requests after the target post is reopened? Or is that too much of a hassle? Or is it important enough to allow those who object to the reopening to post answers explaining their reasoning, after the post has been reopened?