Comma usage (or lack thereof)

[xsquare]

Hi! I've recently gotten back the scorecard for my very first review on OBC (and first review in a while, actually), and the editor has identified a couple of sentences where I'm underutilizing commas. I'm pretty rusty with regards to writing and general grammar rules, so I'm hoping I could get some clarification here on where exactly I went wrong. The original sentences are written below:

1. Vincent Panettiere’s A Woman to Blame is written in third person omniscient, but more often than not follows the perspective of Mike Hegan, a Chicago police detective.

The editor has suggested adding a comma after 'more often than not', but I'm not too sure.

2. The action picks up somewhere around a third into the book and from then on, it’s a ride to solve the mystery and find the real killer.

Again, a suggestion to add a comma between 'book' and 'and from then on'.

3. The conclusion also felt a little lacking, and there were too many loose ends which I thought didn’t get a proper resolution.

Another suggestion to add a comma after 'loose ends' and before 'which'. Personally, I do think this sentence is a little problematic, but I would replace 'which' with 'that' and leave the comma out of that part of the sentence entirely. (Admittedly, I'm also not too clear on the usage of 'which' vs 'that'.)

What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance!

[MrsCatInTheHat]

I would agree with the editor on both 2 & 3. I'm not sure about the first one...
If you think the editor is wrong, you do need to supply an explanation for why you are right.

[Samuel Windybank]

I agree with 2 and 3 also. Both examples are adverbials. They’re extra information that can be removed from the sentence while still ensuring it remains a complete sentence.

Here’s a handy link for that vs. which:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/which-vs-that/

[AlexisLib]

I would have written those sentences the way you did.

I really think American English is evolving to use fewer commas. Fewer commas is a more modern style; it makes the writing more direct and active. I do copyediting and some style guides say to use fewer commas, especially in academic writing (which our reviews aren't, but they are non-fiction). The suggestion of these guides is to add a comma only when it makes the meaning clearer.

In my job as a copyeditor, I would have been dinged for using all those commas.

Sample a few recently published books and you'll see what I mean in the authors' writing. All the books I've read here so far use the more modern style.

It seems to me to be a matter of style. I would like to know what Scott thinks about this. Is this a matter of style and personal preference, or do we need to adhere to the strict guidelines of clauses and comma use?

[AlexisLib]

In sentence 2, if the adverbial phrase is removed, the sentence doesn't make sense. It would be: The action picks up somewhere around a third into the book, it’s a ride to solve the mystery and find the real killer.

In sentence 3, "that" would be better than "which."

[xsquare]

I would agree with the editor on both 2 & 3. I'm not sure about the first one...
If you think the editor is wrong, you do need to supply an explanation for why you are right.

Yeah, the first sentence is also the one that gives me the most pause. Unfortunately, I'm not too sure what exactly is the technical name for this kind of sentence so I can't find identify the exact error, even if I did request for a recheck.

[xsquare]

I agree with 2 and 3 also. Both examples are adverbials. They’re extra information that can be removed from the sentence while still ensuring it remains a complete sentence.

Here’s a handy link for that vs. which:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/which-vs-that/

I'm not quite sure where the adverbial is in 2; do you mind highlighting it for me? For 3, removing 'which I thought didn't get a proper resolution' leaves a sentence that still makes sense, but I thought it was an important clarification – to be fair, I probably should've used 'that' instead of 'which'.

Thanks for the link! It was quite helpful.

[xsquare]

I would have written those sentences the way you did.

I really think American English is evolving to use fewer commas. Fewer commas is a more modern style; it makes the writing more direct and active. I do copyediting and some style guides say to use fewer commas, especially in academic writing (which our reviews aren't, but they are non-fiction). The suggestion of these guides is to add a comma only when it makes the meaning clearer.

In my job as a copyeditor, I would have been dinged for using all those commas.

Sample a few recently published books and you'll see what I mean in the authors' writing. All the books I've read here so far use the more modern style.

It seems to me to be a matter of style. I would like to know what Scott thinks about this. Is this a matter of style and personal preference, or do we need to adhere to the strict guidelines of clauses and comma use?

Interesting point! I learnt English mostly from reading (usually books of the modern and fictional variety ), so I would say my grasp of the language is way more intuitive than technical – I tend to go with what "sounds right" in my head, which might not actually be correct (as I've unfortunately discovered in my scorecard). I'm interested to know what Scott thinks about this too.

[Samuel Windybank]

I agree with 2 and 3 also. Both examples are adverbials. They’re extra information that can be removed from the sentence while still ensuring it remains a complete sentence.

Here’s a handy link for that vs. which:
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/which-vs-that/

I'm not quite sure where the adverbial is in 2; do you mind highlighting it for me? For 3, removing 'which I thought didn't get a proper resolution' leaves a sentence that still makes sense, but I thought it was an important clarification – to be fair, I probably should've used 'that' instead of 'which'.

Thanks for the link! It was quite helpful.

This is your sentence:
The action picks up somewhere around a third into the book and from then on, it’s a ride to solve the mystery and find the real killer.

This is with the adverbial removed:
The action picks up somewhere around a third into the book and it’s a ride to solve the mystery and find the real killer.

It still makes sense as a complete sentence, but the extra clarification is needed with the adverbial. All it needed was that extra comma before it’s

Hope that helps

[xsquare]

You're right, it does make sense! I can see where I should've added the comma now. Thanks for your help