Thank you for your reversion of my edit to the Blackfriars station article. If my rewrite didn't reflect the source, then that was the right thing to do according to our policies.
However, that sentence as it stands is ambiguous on two points. Since you have the source, it will be much easier for you to clear those points up than me! Perhaps that the sentence is clear to you because you have the context supplied by the source, but a reader of the Blackfriars article has a different context. So maybe I can contribute more helpfully by pointing out the ambiguities so that you can re-write the sentence to avoid them.
Firstly, the entities involved are ambiguous. Have a look at this example:
Tesco Sainsburys plc was created as a new company to complete the supermarket chain, which split the operations from Tesco and Sainsburys.
The natural reading of that sentence is that Tesco and Sainsburys existed as two independent entities, and then Tesco Sainsburys was created as a new, third company. Likewise, the natural reading of the Blackfriars sentence that I edited is that "the District and Metropolitan Railways" existed as two independent entities and the the MDR was created as a new, third company. Is that what your source says? If not, then I think it would be helpful to re-write the sentence. I think you are using "the District" as an elegant variation for MDR, which is good English style. However, the reader of the Blackfriars article has already been introduced to "the District Railway" in the London, Chatham and Dover Railway section, without any hint that it's a synonym for the MDR, so in the context of the current article revision, the wording in the Underground section is unhelpful.
Secondly, it is not clear what "would split the budget from" refers to. What is the budget for: the MDR, the Circle line, or the completion of the Circle line? All of them are syntactically possible. And is it the budget for the completion of the Circle line or for its operation afterwards? In my re-write, I plumped for a reading that it was the budget for the completion of the Circle line and that that was identical (as far as Blackfriars station is concerned) with the construction of the MDR. If that is incorrect and your source has a different explanation, then it would be helpful if you could make that clear.
This has become a comically large amount of feedback for one sentence, but it looks like you made a major contribution to creating a Good Article about Blackfriars, so perhaps you can take heart that a small flaw looks much worse when it's in the middle of something beautiful! Matt's talk 14:27, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks for you note. I've trimmed the text down and rewritten it to be a bit more unambiguous. The sentence isn't vitally important for the overall history of Blackfriars, so it can be trimmed down somewhat.
:Because only one source (Day / Reed) is being cited, it may be worth consulting further sources. The District Line - an Illustrated History (M A C Horne, Capital Transport) is another one worth consulting, but I don't have a copy of that. Once we've had a look at multiple sources, things might be a bit clearer.
:Blackfriars is also an interesting station to visit, not many trains call there, and you wouldn't normally stop there if you were coming from outside London, but to embark or disembark when you're standing above the middle of the Thames is quite an interesting experience.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you for taking the time to improve the article. The new text completely removes both ambiguities, which is ideal. I agree that the information that was lost isn't vital for the Blackfriars article.
::And yes, I also had the privilege of using the rebuilt Blackfriars and it was indeed a magnificent location. One of the few occasions when I was almost annoyed that my train left on time! Matt's talk 15:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
