[balabaster]

Perhaps I'm missing your meaning: "It's just that you can wean off senior developers quicker"

Code reviews are just as necessary for senior devs, but it's more about helping everyone to understand what just happened and why: Here's the problem, here's what I did to resolve it, here are the pieces of the system it touches.

That way at least one other developer is in the loop. Two heads are always better than one. Someone else might spot something you've missed... and worst case scenario, if I get hit by a bus tomorrow, someone else knows what I did and there's less of a chance that someone will have to spend a week wading through my code trying to reverse engineer what I just did.

[mod]

The last point is really not a good one.

It would clearly be better to have the chance someone spends a week wading through your code than explaining all the changes you made to avoid that happening. You'll spend more than a week doing that.

I don't disagree with your other points, though. Two heads are better than one, and code reviews are important for a slew of reasons at all levels.

[markbernard]

Not really. Trying to explain your code to someone else helps you understand better as much as it helps someone else to understand it. You only explain it at a high level unless there is a complicated part that you might then go through line by line.

[sergiosgc]

What I mean is that if you do not see permanent value in code reviews, at least the onboarding aspect should be considered undisputabe.