The Close-/Reopen system is at least partly predicated on quickly closing questions that are not on topic and quickly reopening those that were edited to be on topic. Let me quote Shog writing on the "purpose of closing":
I would like to propose the following four-part sentence as a summary of purpose for closing - and the larger "close / edit / reopen OR delete" cycle - on Stack Overflow:
- The closing system exists to allow askers and answerers to collaborate on constructing high-quality questions and answers, by...
- ...providing a clear path for questions that either cannot or should not be answered to be identified, and...
- ...ensuring that they are then either sufficiently improved or...
- ...removed from view.
In this summary, #2 corresponds to the act of closing a question, while #3 encompasses both editing and reopening, and #4 is deletion. These are the critical actions that enable this purpose to be realized.
Unfortunately for large sites that's not really working as well as originally intended.
To improve the reactiveness of closing and reopening on Stack Overflow, the CM team ran an experiment with reducing the number of required close-votes to 3 (instead of the 5 that are standard network-wide)
The results show a clear improvement in the number of questions that are edited and reopened as a result of changing that.
The implication of that could be that quicker closing is more likely to result in edits making the question on topic, speeding up the system overall.
As such closing a question is intended to be significantly less harsh than it might look like at the first (or even second glance).
As usual for SE that's badly communicated, but alas that's not what this question here was about ;)
The problem with the review item you linked was not that it was quickly voted to close. Instead the problem lies within the lack of guidance, the "clear path for questions" that should hopefully lead to "sufficient improvement".
That issue is currently being discussed in various posts here on our meta.