Irrelevant to the story or the premise of the article, this has to be the most tortured use of punctuation in a sentence ever: The bulb has been on almost continuously since 1901, he said; in 2015, it surpassed a million hours in service, making it, according to Guinness World Records, the longest-burning in the world.
The punctuation, while accurate, is unnecessary because the sentence e could be simplified. For example, if I were to write it, it might come out like this . . .The bulb has been on almost continuously since 1901, he said. It surpassed a million hours in service in 2015, making it the longest-burning in the world according to Guinness World Records.
No. The issue is that the sentence is unnecessarily complex, creating a need for the extra punctuation. By rearranging the sentence structure and breaking it into two sentences, it cuts down on the punctuation and also makes it easier to read.