+0
http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=364262&seqNum=2
This is the text taken from the link above:
1. Now, remember all that information about who the document author was, who had reviewed it, and which computers it came from?

How come they used 'had reviewed'? Where is the second part to it? I don't see it.
What about 'came'? How come they didn't use past perfect there? Like 'had come' ? Why only use it for 'had reviewed' ?

Thanks.
Comments  
Just a mistake, I think, Jack. It should be simple past tense, 'who reviewed it'. That's a software publishing site, not real publishers. The writer was thinking of previous reviewers when she wrote the sentence, but did not pay enough attention to the grammar.

(It could also be a typo for 'has reviewed it', if she expected more reviewers.)
I think this is fine, let us consider three pieces of information regarding the document:

1) the author
2) the reviewer
3) the source computer

With respect to 1), the author of of the document is an existential fact. So being an author is not an action you can finish doing. Once you are the author, you stay that way forever. Hence just a simple 'was'.

As for 2), both 'had reviewed' and 'reviewed' would be fine, but with subtle differences in their meaning. 'had reviewed' is the past perfective as you say and so it convys the meaning of 'reviewing' and having finished reviewing. A completed action. You can also say just 'who had reviewed it', but this can mean that the person who was reviewed it might not have finished. Now, these two interpretations are disambiguated by context. You see the review before you and thus must conclude that the action is already finished. So, although the perfective aspect is not expressed syntactically, it is inferred from context.

As for 3) then, it is similar to 1). You simply state something, where it had come from. You wouldn't use the past perfect because 'coming from somewhere' is not an action which you can complete or finish. Once you come from somewhere, you remain 'coming' from there forever.

So, in conclusion, in order to be the most explicit as possible, the construction you described is correct.

eq
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Thanks for the great explanation.
Are these correct? What do they mean?

1. You had helped me out with so many things when I was working there. (Is it better to use past perfect rather than just past tense here? If so, I don't get it. What's the point of past perfect here? Does it mean 'You had helped me out first then I was there'? It doesn't make sense?)
2. You helped me out with so many things when I was working there. (Is this one better or the past perfect?)

If I don't have two past actions, do I use this:
3. You have helped me out with so many things.

Thanks.
Can someone help me out with the post above? Thanks.

Are these correct? If not, why?
1. Had you seen this movie before this one? (Do I have two events here or one? Is it better to use 'had' or 'have' ? How do you know?)
2. Had you had other dates before this one?(Do I have two events here or one? Is it better to use 'had' or 'have' ? How do you know?)

Thanks again.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
1. You had helped me out with so many things when I was working there. (Is it better to use past perfect rather than just past tense here? If so, I don't get it. What's the point of past perfect here? Does it mean 'You had helped me out first then I was there'? It doesn't make sense?)

JTT: The past perfect doesn't have to be used. Just because there are two past events doesn't mean that you have to use the past perfect. Just as the present perfect is used to add a degree of importance, so too is the past perfect.

2. You helped me out with so many things when I was working there. (Is this one better or the past perfect?)

JTT: Both are fine and the simple past is most often used.

If I don't have two past actions, do I use this:
3. You have helped me out with so many things.

JTT: To reiterate, just because there are two past events doesn't mean that you always have to use the past perfect. Ask me again about this in mid-April, Jack and I'll try to clear it up for you. There are times when the past perfect is needed but it isn't as common a structure as you might think.

# 3 would be fine and it would be used to make these past actions current and therefore seemingly more important.
Excuse me, I have big question, I don't know hot to use JUST in the passive in the next exercise I'm going to write, OK! active voice: Michael has just finished the report, so

passive voice:

the report has just been finished by Michael

the report has been just finished by Michael

Thanks a lot!!!
Mister MicawberJust a mistake, I think, Jack. It should be simple past tense, 'who reviewed it'. That's a software publishing site, not real publishers. The writer was thinking of previous reviewers when she wrote the sentence, but did not pay enough attention to the grammar.

(It could also be a typo for 'has reviewed it', if she expected more reviewers.)