Too many think code reviews are an opportunity for endless debates over personal preference. A code review should be fast and cover blatant good practice violations and architectural mistakes. Everything else should be taken care of by linters and tools. If a reviewer wants code done in a different way they can write the code themselves.
I agree that anything that _could_ be covered by an automated check ought to be. But don't think I'm convinced that everything else is either an egregious mistake or isn't worth discussing. IMO a big part of what you ought to be reviewing for is readability, which does sometimes overlap with personal preference. But there's a spectrum from "I'd indent these columns a little differently" to "it's hard for me to follow…
Re: Improving code review time
#111"I think it'd be clearer if we organized things like..." any such guidelines should be agreed upon beforehand, otherwise what's the expectation? That people rewrite their code to accommodate someone's needs? Reading, other than what's in whatever coding style the team uses, is subjective. Best to agree upon what the whole team prefers beforehand.