I would suggest changing the title to "the dangers of not fixing problems found in code review", the very first example shows code review being an effective mea

I would suggest changing the title to "the dangers of not fixing problems found in code review", the very first example shows code review being an effective means of finding problems, and the presumption is that they just let the problem slide instead of refusing to merge the change until it was fixed. The problem of changes being to big ... is another instance where you're ignoring the results of the code review. "This change is too big for me to review effectively" is a 100% legitimate problem with a change. The change should get rejected on that basis alone.