Here is one example of the effect which following up on Strunk and White’s linguistic advice may have (see last week’s blog post on this):
He spent a considerable portion of 1802 in Nellore collecting manuscripts, interviewing local Brahmins whom they considered accomplished poets, collecting information on local libraries and their contents, and finally translation work (p. 137).
(Thanks to my husband for the example.) They? Who are they in this context? The subject in the preceding clause is “he”, pronominalising Lakshmaya in the sentence before that. Is this the work of a copy-editor, alerted to a passive (“who were considered accomplished poets”) and applying Strunk and Whites dictum “The active voice is usually more direct and vigorous than the passive” (p. 18 in my copy)? (If so, he or she may have been pleased to be able to change the who into whom at the same time.)
Nearly five years ago I reported on a conference paper by the late Geoffrey Leech on this blog, called “Decline and (?)disappearance: The negative side of recent changes in Standard English”. The passive was one construction under threat according to Leech, which he attributed to the over-zealous application of prescriptive rules in popular (American) usage guides like Strunk and White. So, copy-editors at OUP’s New Delhi branch and elsewhere: keep the passives in, this will keep them alive and “vigorous”, but will stop us from making grammatical blunders in the first place.