A few months back, I was using a github repo and found that it has some bugs. It took me one whole night to fix it. I submitted a pull request with the fix. Now, instead of just merging it, the owner of the repo added a code review asking me to fix some conventions (and the conventions he suggested did not conform to the official style guide of the language + he could fix them faster than writing the code review) and asked me to do additional things that had nothing to do with the bug fix.

I guess this is an example of a toxic code review or what I call "code review for the sake of code review". It turned me off so much that I haven't responded to it yet.

This article misses the fact that review can touch on design decisions that are likely to lead to higher costs in the future, anything from bugs, unreadability, support requests, etc. Most of these kinds of decisions aren't defined by "industry standard" in some document somewhere.