Talk:Pomfret School/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Notecardforfree (talk · contribs) 19:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The portions of this article written in prose (rather than in lists) are well-crafted and generally free of errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The list portions of this article do not seem to be in any identifiable order. I recommend ordering the lists of lists of alumni, faculty, and prominent fellow & gusts either chronologically or alphabetically (see MOS:LIST). The lists now conform to the MOS.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	~~See comments.~~ The citation style complies with WP:FNNR.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	~~See comments.~~ Lists of alumni, faculty, fellows, and guests not comply with WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF. Consequently, this article does not satisfy rule 2(b) of the Good Article Criteria, which requires that "all in-line citations are from reliable sources" (emphasis added). I'm not sure what to do about the citations for alumni, faculty and fellows since in many cases, the only "official" record is that of the school itself. I have verified each person with the appropriate authority at the school, but in many cases, no 3rd party source (newspaper, etc.) has been found. In this case, it seems to me that since diplomas and employment records are official, verifiable documents, the fact that they are maintained by the school and cited as such, should not disqualify them as reliable sources. Please advise.--96.251.10.198 (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] In response to the IP's questions above, I explained in my comments that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines prohibit editors from relying upon self-published materials that make claims about the subject's association with third parties. The Wikipedia community reached consensus that these policies were necessary because self-published sources often exaggerate claims about relationships with celebrities or other notable individuals. There is a good chance the school is telling the truth, but GA reviewers are not free to grant exceptions to compliance with Wikipedia policy based on their own personal intuition. To do so would undermine the integrity of Wikipedia policies. As I mentioned below, if you want to bring this article to GA status, I recommend deleting these sections entirely. In fact, even if this article does not go through another GA review, I think there is a strong argument in favor of deleting these sections because they do not satisfy requirements for verifiability (see WP:V and WP:RS). Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~See comments.~~ There are no problems with WP:OR or WP:SYNTH
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~See comments.~~ Upon further review, I am satisfied that this article satisfies the breadth requirement.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article does not lose focus.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	~~See comments.~~ I am satisfied that this article fairly and accurately presents the subject matter.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Although this article was only recently nominated for GA status, it has generally been stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	~~See comments.~~ The images are all within policy, but please consider justifying the images on the right side of the page so that readers with smaller screens won't have trouble reading the text.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~See comments.~~ Images are relevant with suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~See comments.~~ This article does not satisfy rule 2(b) of the Good Article Criteria

Comments from Notecardforfree

I want to thank the author of this article for the hard work they have done to improve this article. Content creation is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, and it is especially difficult to write good articles. However, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed before this article can pass this GA review:

Reliance on Unreliable, Self-Published Material: Most of this article relies upon (a) Pomfret's self-published book celebrating their centennial and (b) the school's website. Wikipedia policy specifies that assertions must be substantiated by reliable sources, and articles generally may not rely upon self-published material. Per WP:USERGENERATED, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". Self published sources may, however, be used as information about the individual/group that published the material in some limited circumstances (per WP:SELFSOURCE), as long as the material is not "unduly self-serving" and "[t]he article is not based primarily on such sources". Unfortunately, the article is based primarily on these two sources and it is self serving to the extent that it focuses solely on the school's accomplishments. The real problem with self-published material is that anyone can publish a book about themselves, and there is really no way to verify the accuracy of statements made in the material. These concerns are reflected in Wikipedia policies that limits the use of such sources. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH, "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." I am sure that this school has been discussed by local newspapers, and I am sure you can find information about the school from the Department of Education (see WP:NHS for advice about finding sources).
Improving the Lists: With the exception of the list of the school's facilities, you do not cite any reliable sources to support your assertions that the individuals listed in this article really are alumni, faculty, prominent fellows/guests (see WP:RS). Nor are the lists in any sort of discernible order (see MOS:LIST). I suggest ordering the lists either alphabetically or chronologically, but in order to include people in these lists in the first place, you need to cite sources.
Breadth of Coverage: Have third party sources written about the school? Has a review of the school ever been published by a third party? Has the school ever been criticized by a third party? Has a newspaper, journal, or magazine ever written about activities that have occurred at the school? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, it should be discussed in this article. Indeed, it is essential for authors to include all relevant perspectives published by reliable sources (see WP:NPOV).
Issues with Images: In general, I think that images almost always improve an article. I like many of the images you have chosen for this article, though there may be licensing issues with some. First, the picture of Alex Gibney includes a "personality rights warning." In light of this warning, I strongly advise you to not use it on this page. Second, the copyright status of the campus map is unclear; the image file contains one note that says it is in the public domain and one that says it is under copyright protection, but that anyone can use it if they properly attribute the creator. Assuming good faith that the campus map is available for public use, I would suggest making it bigger (per WP:IMAGESIZE) so that people can see the details of the map a little more clearly.

Right now, the biggest issues are (a) finding reliable third party sources about this school and (b) expanding the breadth of coverage in this article based on those sources. Otherwise, please let me know if you have any questions about any of my comments. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the recommendations. I'll get to it.Jacques Bailhé 23:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbailhe (talk • contribs)

I do have a couple questions. 1) The Alex Gibney image is from Wikipedia. He's a classmate of mine and I imagine would send a photo, but since the image is from Wikipedia, is it not OK to use here? 2) The campus map was created by Pomfret for web usage. I checked before I put it up. If there is confusion about its identification, that's my fault while uploading. How can I correct this? 3) I do understand your points about breadth of references and I will continue to improve as I can, but isn't information from Pomfret's Director of Communications and archivist authoritative enough to use? For much of this info, I don't quite know where else I would find it. Numerous websites have info, but in the main, they simply quote from Pomfret's website. Thanks in advance for any help.Jacques Bailhé 02:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbailhe (talk • contribs)

Jbailhe, thank you for following up so promptly! I see that you have already started to make edits to the article, and here are some answers to your questions:

1. Alex Gibney Image: Even if an image is not protected by copyright, the subject of a photograph may still demand payment when their image is reused without their permission (see this explanation). There is a possibility that Alex Gibney may be able to demand compensation for the re-use of his image. Therefore, I would remove the picture. You already have so many other images of alumni, there is really no need for one more.

2. Campus Map: On the file of the image, I would remove the tag that says the image is in the public domain. It sounds like this is a copyrighted image, but you have permission to use it here. As I mentioned above, I would consider enlarging the image a little (per WP:IMAGESIZE). There is no use including a note in the caption that says "click to enlarge," because almost every reader of Wikipedia knows that they can enlarge images by clicking on them.

3. Self-published material: As I discussed above, self-published material implicates issues of reliability and verifiability. Wikipedia policy cautions against the use of self-published material because it is so easy to publish information about yourself that is false (or simply self-aggrandizing). For example, I could self-publish a book about myself, in which I claim that I shot JFK while standing on the grassy knoll in Dallas (I did not, in fact, shoot JFK). Likewise, if I was a school, I could publish a website that claimed 100% our students get accepted to college, but in reality only 90% get into college. There is really no way to know if the author is telling the truth about themselves. It is even harder when it involves a white lie or manipulation of facts and data. For example, a college may claim they had twenty academic buildings on campus, but they may omit the fact that five of those buildings are storage sheds where the college keeps dinosaur bones. Wikipedia policy does allow for limited use of self published material, but it cannot be "unduly self-serving" and "[t]he article is not based primarily on such sources" (see WP:SELFSOURCE). However, Wikipedia policy tells editors to "[e]xercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" (see WP:SELFPUBLISH). If you keep looking, I am sure you will find third party sources. Try looking in local newspapers or journals about secondary education. If the school has produced this many famous alumni, I am sure it has received attention from the press.

There are a few other things that I have noticed about your most recent edits to the article:

1. Picture in the Lead: When articles use images in the lead, it is always in the upper right hand corner of the article. Because there is an infobox here, you should move the image further down in the article. It is really a very nice picture, and I would also consider making it larger.

2. Sources for lists: I see that you have begun to alphabetize the lists, but you still need sources to substantiate that the people listed here really are faculty, alumni, etc.

Please let me know if you have question about any of my comments. Thanks again for your hard work with this! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved "Picture in Lead," changed Alex Gibney photo to one of my own, added citations to alumni. A question on that though. Most all the alumni listed have WP pages which are linked on the Pomfret page. Is it necessary to add new citations or can we rely on citations on their WP pages? I do understand your note above about "Campus Map," but sizing it large enough to read the captions wouldn't look very nice. Although most readers may realize you can click to enlarge, I don't see any downside to including that note in the caption to make it clear, so I have left it as I had it. If there is a prohibition against this, I'll certainly change it, but it seems right to me as it now is. RE: "Self published material," on the question of whether Alumni are indeed such, I don't see how there's a more reliable source than the school since they issue diplomas under State Board of Education and other authority. I am continuing to work on sources for facilities and so on that are outside the school or the book by Brad Pearson which was written for the school. As I hear back on inquiries to the Pomfret Town Library and so on, I'll add whatever references I can find. Thanks again for your thoughtful help. --Jacques Bailhé 23:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, I find that Books In Print is no longer active on the web for searches of authorship, etc. A notice where the site used to be suggests using Amazon so I have referenced that to cite authorship by Alumni. Is that OK? --Jacques Bailhé 23:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments Regarding October 18 Improvements

Jbailhe, thank you for your continued efforts with this article. I know you are putting a lot of work into this article, and I would like to take a moment to address your most recent comments/questions, as well as a few other issues:

1.Alex Gibney image: The new image is licensed via Creative Commons, so I think this one is okay.

2.Sources to prove alumni really are alumni: Any assertion of fact in this article must be supported by a citation to a reliable source (see the second criterion at WP:GACR). Articles must include either inline citations or some other citation method in accordance with the relevant guidelines for notes and references. However, WIkilinking to other Wikipedia articles will not suffice. You need to provide sources that specifically say the individual is an alumnus/alumna of the school. Unfortunately, many of the sources you have provided do not actually support the assertion that the individual is an alumnus/alumna of the school (and some names still have no citations at all). Here are some examples citations that need to be fixed:

Edward Streeter: You link to a list of books on Amazon. This source includes no biographical information.
Roger Angell: You link to a list of his New Yorker bio, but it does not say he attended Pomfret.
Adam Hochschild: You link to a list of books on Amazon. This source includes no biographical information.
Joe Boyd: You link to a list of books on Amazon. This source includes no biographical information.
Douglas Tompkins: You link to an article in The Atlantic, but it does not mention Pomfret.
Brian Flynn: You link to his NHL bio, but it does not mention Pomfret.

3.Campus map image: I think the way you have it now is fine. I don't think there is any strict prohibition for "click here" captions, but you should familiarize yourself with the portions of the Manual of Style that deal with image captions (see WP:CAPTION).

4.Self-published material: Wikipedia's policies for reliable sources and verifiability state that self published material is almost always not acceptable as a reliable source (see WP:SELFPUBLISH and my comments above). There is simply no way to know whether an author of self-published material is exaggerating or lying about their own accomplishments. At the moment, significant portions of this article still rely on self-published sources. You will need to find third-party sources to substantiate this information. Indeed, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so" (quoted from WP:SELFPUBLISH).

5.Remaining material not supported by inline citations to reliable sources: There are also large portions of this article that include no citations at all. Much of the "athletics" section, the list of faculty, and the list of prominent fellow/guests need citations.

6.Placement of images: I probably should have mentioned this earlier, but images should be right-justified on the page. Per WP:IMAGELOCATION, "[i]n most cases, images should be right justified on pages".

At the moment, this article still has not satisfied the second Good Article Criterion. There are significant portions of the article that rely upon unverifiable self-published material, many assertions cite sources that do not actually support those assertions, and there are still large portions of unreferenced material. I am willing to give you a little extra time to find additional sources, but the Good Article rules do not allow for articles to pass review when they primarily rely upon sources that not recognized as "reliable" by Wikipedia's policies. Please let me know if you have any questions about any of the above comments. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notecardforfree - Thank you for your replies.

RE: Sources to prove alumni really are alumni. It is customary when checking a resume to verify a person’s claim of a diploma or degree to do so with the institution they claim. Such information is most often not published in a public source such as a newspaper. Educational institutions issue diplomas and degrees under the auspices of government and accrediting organizations. Of course there may be instances of dishonest representations among schools, but they make them with serious threat to their reputation and accreditation and so, I imagine, are small in number. From another point of view, American law works on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, and so, I suggest schools’ statements about diplomas and degrees should be considered factual until proven otherwise. They are official records maintained by schools. In the case of this school, the list of Notable alumni has been verified by the school, the only official record keeper of such information that I know of, and I believe we are obliged to consider their assurance as trustworthy until proven otherwise. I hope you will re-consider all this.

RE: the particular alumni citations you mention, none of the citations are intended to verify they received diplomas from the school.

Edward Streeter: the reference to Amazon verifies his authorship

Roger Angell: reference verifies his position at The New Yorker

Adam Hochschild: Amazon verifies authorship

Joe Boyd: Amazon verifies authorship

Douglas Tompkins: verifies business and philanthropy

Brian Flynn: verifies playing in the NHL

RE: Self-published material: as mentioned, I am continuing to work on references for outside sources such a the Pomfret Town Library, etc. As I hear back from them, I hope to be able to make improvements.

RE: Placement of images, in some cases, to keep photos clearly within the section to which they pertain, placing them at left and right, rather than all left, solved the problem and seemed like an attractive solution. I hope you might agree that in this case, it’s sensible.

I am careful not to use citations that do not support whatever statement they are attached to. If you find that placement of any citation is confusing or accidentally misleading, I will, of course change it, but as above with the alumni and Amazon, and other references, I think they are appropriate and clear. Please do let me know if you think differently.

Thank you again or help. --Jacques Bailhé 16:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

As of today, out of 84 total citations, 27 come from Pomfret sources. I hope to continue reducing reliance on Pomfret sources as I hear back on inquiries I've made. Jacques Bailhé 20:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Comments from October 23

Jbailhe, again I thank you for your continued efforts to improve this article. I apologize for my delay responding to this GA review, but I wanted to carefully consider all relevant issues before commenting again. I would like to respond to the points you raised in your most recent remarks:

Pomfret's self-published material: Wikipedia policy is clear that self-published materials are almost never acceptable as reliable sources (see my previous remarks and WP:SELFPUBLISH). Per WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF, I think we can keep the citations to Pomfret's self-published materials when they support claims about the school itself, but Wikipedia policies also forbid the use of self-published material when it "involve[s] claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". Because you have buttressed this article with support from other reliable third-party sources, I think you can keep the citations to Pomfret's materials in all sections except those about alumni, faculty, fellows, and guests. Those sections make claims about third parties, so the citation to Pomfret's website is therefore not appropriate. You could make the argument that the self-published material is really about Pomfret's own graduation records, but my interpretation of the policy is that it forbids editors from relying on self-published material that discusses third parties in any respet (see this discussion, where consensus agreed that the policy was necessary because self-published materials often try to create the appearance of an association that may not actually exist). If you were to ask me for my personal opinion, I would say that I think it is exceedingly unlikely Pomfret is lying on their website or promotional materials. Nevertheless, GA reviewers cannot substitute their own opinions of what they think rules and policies should be for those that have already been established through consensus and deliberation.
Citations in Alumni section: Now that you have explained what you are doing here, the purpose of those citations is clear to me, but see my comments below regarding this section.
Placement of images: Although the Good Article Criteria state that Good Articles should be illustrated (if possible) by appropriate images, the placement of images is not relevant to passing or failing a GA review, except to the extent that it may violate other policies (e.g. WP:NPOV). Nevertheless, I think that having images on both the right and left side of the screen creates a cluttered appearance that may be disruptive to readers with smaller screens. If you are worried that images are spilling over into other sections, I think the best course of action would be to place fewer images in the article, rather than to jam them into the right margin. But again, this issue is not relevant to passing or failing a GA review.

You have done an excellent job improving this article. However, the article still does not satisfy rule 2(b) of the Good Article Criteria, which requires that "all in-line citations are from reliable sources" (emphasis added). At the moment, the alumni, faculty, and guests & fellows sections all rely upon a self-published source in a manner that is not permitted under relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (because they discuss third parties with whom the school clams to have an association). The other portions of this article satisfy the baseline criteria for passing a Good Article review, so if you remove the alumni, faculty, and fellows & guests portion, then we can revisit the review. I'll keep this review open until at least October 31, so that we have time to resolve these issues (and hopefully make the article compliant with all GA criteria). Thank you very much for your efforts to improve this article, and please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments and advice are very helpful, and thank you for your patience. I'll see what I can do to fix things up. Jacques Bailhé 15:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jbailhe, this is a friendly reminder that I will be closing this GA review tomorrow. At the moment, the alumni, faculty, and guests & fellows sections all rely upon a self-published source. As I discussed in my previous remarks, this is not permitted under relevant Wikipedia policies. Additionally, the portion of the article about the Grauer Family Institute's innovations needs to be supported with inline citations to a reliable source. I know that you have put a lot of hard work into this article, and I certainly would like to see it pass, but we need to make sure it complies with all the Good Article Criteria. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and close the review. And thanks very much for your advice on this. Still waiting to hear back from inquiries and that's probably going to take a while longer. When I do, I'll try to improve to meet the standards. BTW, devices with smaller screens, at least iPhone and iPad, display everything fine. iPhone displays the photos centered on the screen in the succession of their file input in the text. Size doesn't seem to matter. Thanks again for your thoughtful help. Jacques Bailhé 16:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Closing remarks

First and foremost, I want to thank Jacques Bailhé for their diligent efforts to improve this article. Jacque's thoughtful and professional demeanor is truly exemplary. In my role as GA reviewer, my decision is bound by Good Article Criteria that require all inline citations to come from reliable sources. The lists of alumni, faculty, fellows, and guests utilize self-published sources in a manner that is not permitted under WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:ABOUTSELF because they make claims about third parties. Therefore, this article does not satisfy rule 2(b) of the Good Article Criteria. I would like to encourage Jacque to submit this article again in the future; I think that once the aforementioned issues are resolved, this has a good chance of passing GA review. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And my compliments and thanks to Notecardforfree for excellent advice on Wikipedia standards and improvements to the article. As discussed above, I am unable to find references for some (but not all) alumni, faculty, fellows, and guests other than the school archives since many of these do not appear to have been published in public sources. I do recognize the usefulness of Wikipedia's criteria in this regard and hope that with more time and effort, I can find third-party sources. However, in some instances I am doubtful I'll succeed. For example, diplomas are issued by schools as official documents under authority of accrediting bodies and government licensing and rarely published as public record. I suggest that in such instances, the official records of a school be considered a reliable source unless proven otherwise. --Jacques Bailhé 20:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Photo Use Authorization

I posted the photo File:Pomfret School Clark Chapel Carols 2009.jpg|thumb|Photo of holiday singing in Clark Memorial Chapel at Pomfret School, Pomfret, CT, USA and subsequently received WP notice that I needed to supply a release form from Pomfret School, the rights holder. I did so. I asked the school's archivist to fill out a standard Wikipedia release form, but she felt she did not have authority and so sent the request on to the Director of Communications, who then returned the release and signed. I forwarded that release to Wikipedia as requested. The photo has since been deleted. Please advise why the release form was not satisfactory. Here is the release as received by me from Pomfret. --Jacques Bailhé 20:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is the release you requested!

Thanks, Melissa

Melissa Perkins Bellanceau, CFRE Director of Advancement & Communications Pomfret School 398 Pomfret Street Pomfret, CT 06258 Office: (860) 963-5957 Cell: (860) 933-8627 Fax: (860) 928-1034 www.pomfretschool.org

From: Jacques Bailhé <jbailhe@verizon.net> Date: Monday, November 23, 2015 at 11:58 AM To: Microsoft Office User <handren@pomfretschool.org> Subject: Photo of Holiday sining in Clark Chapel

I have used a photo of Holiday singing in Clark Chapel on the Wikipedia page, but will need a release from Pomfret. If you can fill in the remaining info on this Wikiepdia release form and email back to me, that would be great. As the school’s archivist, and so an “Appointed Representative, I believe Wikipedia would accept your authority for the release. If you think you can’t grant the release, please let me know who might.

Jacques Bailhé jbailhe@verizon.net 310-476-6957

I hereby affirm that Pomfret School, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of Pomfret School Clark Chapel Carols 2009.jpg as shown here:

File:Pomfret School Clark Chapel Carols 2009.jpg Photo of holiday singing in Clark Memorial Chapel at Pomfret School, Pomfret, CT, USA https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pomfret_School_Clark_Chapel_Carols_2009.jpg I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites.

I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder.

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

<image001.jpg> [the image is her digital signature, which was visible in the PDF I sent to Wikipedia]

Melissa Bellanceau

Director of Advancement & Communications, Pomfret School

November 23, 2015

All content transmitted in and attached to this electronic message is legally privileged and confidential under applicable laws, and is intended only for the person or entity to which it is specifically addressed. If any recipient of this message is not a named intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, copy, disclosure or other use of, or taking any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.