These are two peer-review reports for two different papers in the same journal. Do you notice anything problematic here?

These two peer-review reports were written by non-existent personas associated with a paper mill. The names that signed the reports are fake. The reports themselves are very superficial and could be used for almost any paper, regardless of topic. Some of the points even coincide (though the wording differs), for example, when both reviewers ask for the references to be updated.