Update OntologiesReviewWorkflow.md to fix formatting

Questions were supposed to each be on its own line

docs/OntologiesReviewWorkflow.md

@@ -32,23 +32,23 @@ The manual process begins once a reviewer is assigned. The reviewer will assess
 
 For the list below, yes/no questions include the expected answers in square brackets after the question. Criteria for review minimally include:
 
-1. Ontology scope - 
-  Do the terms fall within the ontology's stated target domain of knowledge? [yes]
-  Was the ontology developed for a very specific purpose or community?
-2. Terms with the new ontology prefix - 
-  Do the terms follow the OBO identifier scheme? [yes]
-  Are there terms with the same <i>meaning</i> available in another OBO Foundry ontology? [no]
-  Is there another OBO Foundry ontology whose scope covers any of the new terms? [no]
-3. Correct use of imported terms - 
-  If the ontology reuses terms from other OBO ontologies, are they used accurately? [yes] 
-  Are imported terms in appropriate hierarchies, and do they preserve the term's upper-level alignment? [yes]
-  Are any additional axioms used for these terms correct in both a technical (e.g. passes reasoning) and substantive sense? [yes]
-4. Basic review of axiomatic patterns - 
-  Are axioms generally stated simply or are they highly complex? (Highly complex axioms will require extra scrutiny.)
-  Are existential restrictions used correctly? [yes] (Typical mistakes include “R some (A and B and C)” to mean “(R some A and R some B and R some C)”).
+1. Ontology scope
+   - Do the terms fall within the ontology's stated target domain of knowledge? [yes]
+   - Was the ontology developed for a very specific purpose or community?
+2. Terms with the new ontology prefix
+   - Do the terms follow the OBO identifier scheme? [yes]
+   - Are there terms with the same <i>meaning</i> available in another OBO Foundry ontology? [no]
+   - Is there another OBO Foundry ontology whose scope covers any of the new terms? [no]
+3. Correct use of imported terms
+   - If the ontology reuses terms from other OBO ontologies, are they used accurately? [yes] 
+   - Are imported terms in appropriate hierarchies, and do they preserve the term's upper-level alignment? [yes]
+   - Are any additional axioms used for these terms correct in both a technical (e.g. passes reasoning) and substantive sense? [yes]
+4. Basic review of axiomatic patterns
+   - Are axioms generally stated simply or are they highly complex? (Highly complex axioms will require extra scrutiny.)
+   - Are existential restrictions used correctly? [yes] (Typical mistakes include “R some (A and B and C)” to mean “(R some A and R some B and R some C)”).
 5. Appropriate use of object properties - 
-  Are object properties used in a manner consistent with their definitions, domain, and range? [yes] (Examples of incorrect usage include those based on some interpretation of the label of the object property but not actually fitting the property definition or domain and range.)
+   - Are object properties used in a manner consistent with their definitions, domain, and range? [yes] (Examples of incorrect usage include those based on some interpretation of the label of the object property but not actually fitting the property definition or domain and range.)
 6. Responsiveness to suggested changes - 
-  Have the developers been willing to fix any identified issues during the review? [yes]
+   - Have the developers been willing to fix any identified issues during the review? [yes]