"Literature review" is a fancy term for what's, practically speaking, the kind of paper you're already most accustomed to: the kind where you pick a topic, research some sources to develop a position, and then weave them all together into a cohesive essay. Literature reviews, more formally, provide an overview of the literature in a field -- what's the common knowledge and consensus on a topic, and where are there gaps.
It provides a review of the literature: a survey of what experts in the field are saying and have said about your topic. It can also identify knowledge gaps and possibilities for future research. You are not presenting an argument yet.
It should not be written like a book report:
You're summarizing the big ideas (not the sources themselves) to the end goal of synthesizing all your research, with your citations sprinkled in throughout to indicate that yes, people are saying these things and look how it overlaps!
Organize by ideas/concepts, not by sources of information. Don't simply summarize one source after another. Look for patterns across your sources.
If we use fruits to stand in for ideas, when you talk about "red apples," you should be pulling in all articles that mention something about red apples. At the very least, those articles should all be used in the same paragraph, but you want to aim for some sentences using more than one, as well. Then (ideally), some of those articles also support the "green apple" idea and the "pumpkin" idea. Sometimes an article will serve one, very specific purpose in your research, and that's fine, too, but they should be the exception and not the rule in your lit review.
Take a look at this professionally published example (link goes to databases; barcode required): notice how sources are frequently integrated and discussed. This one is a more formal lit review and gets into how the authors organized their search; it's also a standalone paper. Of note: