Yes, you are correct in your clarification. I took the statement from the article linked in my post, but omitted the part about the re-sizing of the District of Columbia.

Here is the remainder:

It is theoretically possible to make an end run around this obstacle by creating a new, separate state out of parts of D.C. without amending the Constitution. That, however, would create a new set of problems. Carving a state out of the existing District might avoid the constitutional issue, at least if Maryland consents. D.C. consisted originally of land ceded to the federal government by Maryland and Virginia, but the Virginia sections were returned (retroceded) in 1846. Article IV, Section 3 of the Constitution provides that “no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” There is some question whether the land ceded by Maryland was ceded irrevocably or only for purposes of being part of the federal District. Legal expert opinions collected by the Congressional Research Service lean toward the view that the grant was irrevocable. Maryland is, in any event, a Democrat-dominated state, despite having a Republican governor, so it would likely consent eventually.

Thanks for offering the clarification.