How to organize the referee report of a paper? One part of the work of any researcher is to referee the work of other scientists in his field. This is a time-consuming and volunteer work, that is made with the idea of service for the community. 

My main question: What are the standards of organization for the referee report of an article? 

For instance, is a "general comment" section (mostly, explaining why the paper should be accepted or rejected) and a "specific comments" (in the form of a list of precise comments e.g. "Page $2$ line $4$: typo. It should read X instead of Y") enough? Or do people organize the review under specific sections like "Typos and writing", "Missing definitions", "Scope of the paper",etc...

I wish my report to be as useful as it could for the author, so I am inquiring about the best practices for referee reports.

PS: It may be a field-dependant question. I am mostly interested about standards in mathematics, but answers for other fields would be interesting too.
I organize my reviews in the way that I would like to receive them, sorted from most important from least important.  My general structure is:


First, I summarize my understanding of the the key ideas and contributions of the paper.
Next, I give my judgement and main reasons for this judgement.
Third, I have a "Major Issues" list of other scientific problems that I think absolutely must be addressed before publications
Finally, I give a "Minor Points" list of nitpicking, language issues, typos, etc.


The first two sections show that I have understood what the authors are trying to say, and the big picture issues.  The third gives the contributing factors, but tries to make it clear that fixing these without fixing the big picture issues won't change my basic judgement (if that judgement was negative).  The final is things that will improve the paper but aren't really affecting my judgement.