Missing or misleading documentation. Confusing names. Lacking test coverage for new functionality. Unnecessarily complex code that can readily be simplified. Co

Missing or misleading documentation. Confusing names. Lacking test coverage for new functionality. Unnecessarily complex code that can readily be simplified. Code that looks important but in fact does nothing useful. Unrelated changes mixed in with a patch that's ostensibly about something else. These are all things I think are valid to point out in a code review. I don't think I would like to work in a company that rejects the notion.