So I’m debating the use of commas within an essential clause that is introduced by the word “which.”
Sentence: You clearly included “training” in your list of things that should be sanctioned, which along with the vague mention of “rides” was the basis of my criticism.
Should there be a comma after “which” and after “rides”, or are commas not required, as “along with the vague mention of rides” is essential to the meaning and therefore not optional?
Here’s another sentence: Maybe I’ll get in touch with her regarding how people handle things like this, which unlike her article usually ends up being off-the-mark and unapologetically so."
Again, should there be a comma after “which” and after “article,” or, as “unlike her article” is not optional, are the commas not needed?
I would write: You clearly included “training” in your list of things that should be sanctioned, which, along with the vague mention of “rides,” was the basis of my criticism.
This sentence I don’t think really parses as it is written. It’s not clear what usually ends up being off the mark or why her article handles things like this correctly. What are you trying to say in this sentence?
For the first sentence, are you sure I can add those commas? I know it reads better that way, but does that not change the meaning? The “along with[…]” that is offset by the commas is required information, not optional, and setting it off with commas makes it look optional to me, so it could be read simply as “You clearly included ‘training’ in your list of things that should be sanctioned, which was the basis of my criticism.”
Second sentence: I’m just trying to say that how people normally handle “things like this” ends up being off-the-mark, whereas her article handles “things like this” in a better manner.
If you want to insist that these two things are of roughly equal importance, I think you need to recast the sentence. The phrase “along with” implies that something else is just coming along for the ride. That it’s in a prepositional phrase inherently makes the “rides” bit less important.
So, maybe: The inclusion of “training” and the vague mention of “rides” in your list of things that should be sanctioned were the basis of my criticism.
How about: Maybe I’ll get in touch with her regarding how people handle things like this, because, unlike in her article, most often people’s reactions end up being off-the-mark and unapologetically so.