Guidelines for Referee Reports
	The purpose of a referee report is to recommend to an editor whether
 a paper is suitable for publication or not, potentially after revision.
 The referees job is to document for the editor reasons for accepting,
 rejecting, requesting revisions. Usually, the referee includes first a one
 paragraph summary of the paper, the development of 3 or 4 main points 
(positive or negative), and potentially a handful of smaller comments/suggestions.
 
Pointing out problems is ok to suggest improvement(s) is great...

First, you should read the paper carefully, checking all the arguments,
 whether mathematical or not, for correctness. Point out any problems
 that you find, and feel free to comment more generally on the paper.

Summary Paragraph(s)
What is the question asked by the author? What is the modeling strategy?
 What data are used? How is the hypothesis formulated and tested?
 What are the results? The purpose of this section is to summarize for
 the editor the paper in a way that let him understand the essence of the
 paper and its contribution, without having to read it. If you like the paper
 motivating why do we care (the contribution) in one sentence of this summary
 helps to sell the paper

See suggestions on how to read a paper as a guidance to find major and minor issues. 

Major comments for the authors consideration:
You then take 2, 3 or 4 major positive or negative issues that came up 
while reading the paper, one at a time. In order to do this, check
 carefully the question, the theory/model, the link to the empirical analysis,
 the presentation of the data, the econometric analysis, and the results.
 
	For a positive point, you want to argue why the question is particularly
 important, or the approach particularly novel, or the techniques new, or the identification 
 strategy innovative, the data very unusual, etc.

	For a negative point, you are often looking for lack of correspondence between 
the idea and the model, the model and the empiricism, the empirical strategy
 and the conclusion. Another argument for rejecting a paper is when the paper
 has nothing wrong but is not new, not interesting, already been better done by author XYZ.
 

Other issues
Usually, if you 
 recommend rejection, you dont even need to do a section on less important issues. 
However, hopefully the papers are not so
 bad, and you may have some less important though useful suggestions to improve the paper. 


Last question to ask yourself:- Are you convinced? What did you learn from this paper?