Cheshire, to use those commas is 100% correct. No one could fault your style. However, please be aware that comma rules are flexible. If introductory phrases are very short and leaving out a comma produces no difficulty in understanding the sentence, you can usually be sure that you will find such phrases not followed by a comma.Yes, I do think you need commas after these introductory phrases. It is common, in English, to set off most introductory phrases and clauses with commas.
Cheshire, to use those commas is 100% correct. No one could fault your style. However, please be aware that comma rules are flexible. If introductory phrases are very short and leaving out a comma produces no difficulty in understanding the sentence, you can usually be sure that you will find such phrases not followed by a comma.
The danger of leaving out commas is that sometimes the writer does not realize that an omission will cause an ambiguity. Even very fine writers ocassionally leave out a comma that causes me to stumble and have to reread a sentence. Being more conservative with commas (meaning to USE them whenever you have a choice) is less likely to cause you to write a sentence that will not be understood.
Gaer
EDIT:
You might try Googling this:
"Between 2000 and 2001 there was"
You will find sentences both with and without the comma. If, for instance, a sentence starts with however, a second comma will usually be omitted:
However, between 2000 and 2001 there was little change in median age for both ACT brides and grooms,...
There the second comma would interrupt the flow without adding any clarity.
As evidenced by Gaer's post, this should be "Between 1944 and 1951." :) Otherwise, either looks good to me.Between 1944 to 1951, there was a huge increase in oil-related revenues.
I had thought there should be not a few people out of 100 native speakers who would claim there should be no commas there (because a comma there would deter the natural flow of a sentence)."Between 2000 and 2001 there was..."