Here's a little exersize you might want your boss to be involved in:
I suspect you already have a good idea what the outcome will be. That should be enough to tell you how effective code reviews are.
Automated code formatters/code inspectors, along with decent compilers/linkers (or interpreters) will surface most of the issues that code reviews find.
Instead of pissing away valuable developer time, put those reviewers to work writing and executing tests. Right away, you'll discover whether the code is testable. And then you'll discover whether its actually correct.
Tests don't have egos, agendas, personal axes to grind, or coworkers they don't want to piss off. They don't take vacations or sick days. They don't have opinions about the author of the code. They usually don't leave the company. They generally don't have an opinion about how many/few comments there are, or if the code has been formatted to corporate spec (unless those tests are executed as part of the automated tools mentioned above). Sure they can be drudgery to write, but its the only real way to know if the code actually does whats its supposed to.
Of course, TFA's author apparently couldn't be bothered to do that either...
Clue for the TFA'a author: there are lots of very interesting open source projects that don't have a damn thing to do with Linux!
(Note to self: use Edit->Find... before commenting)
But I still think its important enough to deserve more than a single passing comment.
In the sciences, we are now uniquely priviledged to sit side by side with the giants on whose shoulders we stand. -- Gerald Holton