Wikipedia:Peer review/The Lord of the Rings film trilogy/archive2

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy
Previously nominated. Currently, the article is listed as a Good Article and is A-Class for the Films WikiProject. Furthermore, it seems to be a good article and I would like to see if become featured. I'd like to know what can be done to make that happen. Thanks, Cbrown1023 00:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, APR t 22:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 22:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Text of automated:
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day.
 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -  between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 5ft, use 5 ft, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 5&amp;nbsp;ft.
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link.
 * As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
 * article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), armour (B) (American: armor), favourite (B) (American: favorite), organise (B) (American: organize), realize (A) (British: realise), ization (A) (British: isation), program  (A) (British: programme).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 44 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “ All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.