Used and loved by millions
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com
was identified
Grammar usage guide and real-world examplesUSAGE SUMMARY
The phrase "was identified" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when referring to something that has been identified or recognized in some way. For example, "The suspect was identified by witnesses."
✓ Grammatically correct
News & Media
Academia
Science
Alternative expressions(20)
Table of contents
Usage summary
Human-verified examples
Expert writing tips
Linguistic context
Ludwig's wrap-up
Alternative expressions
FAQs
Human-verified examples from authoritative sources
Exact Expressions
60 human-written examples
Neither man was identified.
News & Media
No perpetrator was identified.
News & Media
Neither was identified publicly.
News & Media
Neither was identified yesterday.
News & Media
Neither was identified.
News & Media
Neither officer was identified.
News & Media
Neither worker was identified.
News & Media
A juvenile was identified.
News & Media
No specific target was identified.
News & Media
ODAP was identified in 1964.
News & Media
9. was identified in Lochaber?
News & Media
Expert writing Tips
Best practice
Use "was identified" when you want to emphasize that a process of identification or recognition took place. For example, "The cause of the error was identified during the investigation".
Common error
Don't use "was identified" when a simpler verb like "found" or "recognized" would suffice. Overusing passive voice can make your writing sound unnecessarily formal or convoluted.
Source & Trust
85%
Authority and reliability
4.6/5
Expert rating
Real-world application tested
Linguistic Context
The phrase "was identified" functions as a passive voice construction, indicating that a subject has undergone a process of recognition or discovery. As Ludwig AI confirms, this structure is grammatically sound and widely applicable.
Frequent in
News & Media
37%
Academia
32%
Science
31%
Less common in
Formal & Business
0%
Encyclopedias
0%
Wiki
0%
Ludwig's WRAP-UP
In summary, the phrase "was identified" is a grammatically correct and widely used passive construction that indicates a process of recognition or discovery. As confirmed by Ludwig AI, its prevalence in news, academic, and scientific writing lends it a formal tone. While versatile, it's crucial to avoid overuse and ensure it appropriately conveys the emphasis on the identification process rather than the identifier. Alternatives like "was recognized" or "was discovered" may be more suitable in certain contexts.
More alternative expressions(10)
Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:
was recognized
Emphasizes acknowledgement or awareness rather than strict determination.
was determined
Focuses on the process of concluding something after investigation.
was discovered
Highlights the finding of something previously unknown.
was detected
Suggests the use of instruments or methods to find something.
was ascertained
Implies a careful and methodical effort to find something out.
was pinpointed
Emphasizes the precise location or identification of something.
was classified
Focuses on categorizing something according to established criteria.
was diagnosed
Specifically used in medical or technical contexts to identify a condition or problem.
was unveiled
Suggests the public revealing of something that was previously hidden or unknown.
came to light
Indicates that information became public or known after being concealed.
FAQs
How can I use "was identified" in a sentence?
Use "was identified" to indicate that something was recognized or determined, often through a specific process. For example, "The problem "was identified" during testing".
What are some alternatives to "was identified"?
Depending on the context, you can use alternatives such as "was recognized", "was detected", or "was discovered".
Is it better to use active or passive voice with "was identified"?
The choice depends on the context. Passive voice, as in "was identified", is useful when the actor is unknown or unimportant. Active voice is better when you want to emphasize who did the identifying.
What's the difference between "was identified" and "became identified"?
"Was identified" implies a single act of recognition. "Became identified" suggests a gradual process or a change in status over time.
Editing plus AI, all in one place.
Stop switching between tools. Your AI writing partner for everything—polishing proposals, crafting emails, finding the right tone.
Table of contents
Usage summary
Human-verified examples
Expert writing tips
Linguistic context
Ludwig's wrap-up
Alternative expressions
FAQs
Source & Trust
85%
Authority and reliability
4.6/5
Expert rating
Real-world application tested