I have finished the review. I review kind of more like a linter than looking for higher-level problems, which is inefficient, but it's just so natural for me. I think that my suggestions would lead to higher quality code which is more pleasant to work with, a factor that ought not to be dismissed. But because of this I spend a lot of time reviewing code, looking closely at it. I think most people probably don't spend enough time reviewing code: if it took someone a day or a week to write, what makes anyone think that looking at it for a half hour is adequate?
I think this is where a technique like XP pays dividends--not that I've ever actually done it--with its test-first mentality and pair programming. It's a review in real time. There's a temptation to say that you're getting one person's worth of productivity out of two people, but this is a lie. The production of a paired team will generally be much higher quality than the production of an individual, leading to fewer bugs released into the wild and lower mitigation costs. The code-in-a-hole then show it to everyone quickly for them to consider model is broken: there's no way these people could consider what an individual has in the short amount of time that is expected for a review.