Great advice, and there are many advantages to doing so. However, my experience with that tends to demonstrate that programmers will nit pick at lesser details (function names, coding convention) and not really take the time to understand what the code on review wants to achieve. Of course, the latter is time consuming ... any thoughts on this?
Having a standards guide or a robo-linters should remove a large chunk of it. Deferring to a document is much easier then arguing.
The nit picking I refer to is not about arguing, once a non-standard piece of code is pointed out, the reviewee usually agrees to correct the issue. I refer to the fact that the reviewers will look at the leaves in the tree and not notice the burning inferno and smoke up ahead in the forest...
I found the only thing that helps is having a strong team lead who identifies this and has the authority to nudge people back on track.
Tell them this? (Or get your manager to tell them)