The first couple seem closely related (to me).
Either rushing or putting off the review is typically the result when the author is thinking about the code but not the people (particularly common examples are large changesets or using tools/features not found elsewhere in the codebase).
I think point four is great, but could go further - there’s vast scope for automation to support a reviewer. Some examples of things a review-support bot could do:
I would really like some of those tools myself. Today I generate the screenshots manually for visual changes. :0)
Codecov.io is a tool I’ve used which provides your third bullet. It will analyze the pull request diff and the code coverage report for that branch, and generate a focused pull request-specific coverage report. I like it a lot. Here’s a very simple example: https://codecov.io/gh/scottnonnenberg/eslint-compare-config/commit/1c8115c3870d7306140e2c928b1964b1ea494c79