To criticize is, basically, to say what should have been different. It is in the past, yet it is still about what should be changed.
> making code more readable is a "change." I don't know what you're trying to say here.
Yes and this is exactly what I am trying to say. The author limited what is the purpose of a code review like it's has really this limitation but, in practice, the code review is widely about what you think it should changed on the code by multiple reasons: readability, manutenibility, performance, security, bugs, use cases, test coverage etc.
Making code more readable is just one of the reasons why you want the code to be changed on a pull request, it's not the primary purpose.
The author seens to misunderstand the purpose of code review. The purpose is, literally, review the code. Review means basically to think/talk about something again in order to make or not changes on it. When you review something (including code), you are basically asking for yourself: "Should it be changed or it's okay to stay like this?"
In order words, the purpose of code review is to or not ask for changes on the code.
> making code more readable is a "change." I don't know what you're trying to say here.
Yes and this is exactly what I am trying to say. The author limited what is the purpose of a code review like it's has really this limitation but, in practice, the code review is widely about what you think it should changed on the code by multiple reasons: readability, manutenibility, performance, security, bugs, use cases, test coverage etc.
Making code more readable is just one of the reasons why you want the code to be changed on a pull request, it's not the primary purpose.