Wiley: Step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript: https://authorservices.wiley.com/Reviewers/journal-reviewers/how-to-perform-a-peer-review/step-by-step-guide-to-reviewing-a-manuscript.html
What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?
I would like to see the following contents in your reviewer's comments
A summary on your evaluation (What is the key idea proposed. Is it important (worthy of publication: novel ideas, major improvements, new applications, new modeling approaches, etc. Rejection: lack of contributions, wrong methodology, old material, etc.)
Comments
Methodology (comments on the main modeling approach, problem formulation and algorithms)
Case set up (Data sources, assumptions, etc.)
Result analysis (sufficient explanation on results, generalizable, tested on enough cases, compared with other approaches, etc)
Conclusion
grammar
format (figure, table, etc.)
Clarifications on ambiguous statements