1

English is my second language. A co-worker who edits my work wrote the following two phrases:

This way, workers can install the guardrail for the next level from a lower platform eliminating the need for a fall arrest system during assembly.

Thanks to this method, it is not necessary to use a personal fall arrest system during any stage in working with the system making it easier to work safely.

Is it me, or do both of these phrases need an extra comma?

This way, workers can install the guardrail for the next level from a lower platform, eliminating the need for a fall arrest system during assembly.

Thanks to this method, it is not necessary to use a personal fall arrest system during any stage in working with the system, making it easier to work safely.

Can someone please help me verify this, I've been Googling this but I haven't been able to find the rule here...

closed as off-topic by user140086, NVZ, jimm101, user66974, MetaEd Apr 22 '16 at 18:09

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Proofreading questions are off-topic unless a specific source of concern in the text is clearly identified." – Community, NVZ, jimm101, Community, MetaEd
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • It appears that the last one would be the correct structure. – user15266 Apr 18 '16 at 15:34
  • 2
    Your way is better. – ab2 Apr 18 '16 at 22:33
1

You are correct: it is better to add a comma between a clause and a non-defining participial phrase, i.e. a participial phrase providing some extra information (rather than limiting what the noun refers to, as my participle "providing" does here). I'm not sure I'd call that comma compulsory, but it is certainly a great improvement

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.