"

 edits in Jan., 2012 

Thank you for recently updating this article. I hope you continue. This article has had many adverse edits in the past and I try to keep it within Wikipedia's standards.

If a statement with two facts is supported by a source and one fact and the source are updated, check whether the source is positioned in the sentence to make it look like the source also supports the other fact. Then be sure the source does support both facts. Otherwise, readers will be misled. If that source does not actually support the second fact, you should find a source for the second fact or preserve the original source and place or edit it so that readers will know which fact is supported by which source. If a fact does not have a source cited for it, the fact can be challenged, edited, or deleted by any editor (the exception being, as Wikipedians sometimes say, that no source is needed for the fact that ""the sky is blue"", or for any fact not likely to be challenged). Much about HSA has been challenged in the past (possibly because of political dislike toward Dr. Moskowitz) and sourcing should be carefully done.

Sources should be secondary, meaning at least one level removed from personal experience. Usually, that means an independent third-party reliable source. By contrast, for example, SA's website is a primary source about SA. Self-statements are primary sources. Primary sources are allowed but must be used with greater care and generally should be shunned (except in the External Links section, for example). Try to find secondary sources wherever possible. Part of Wikipedia's standard is at WP:PSTS.

The lede (sometimes spelled ""lead"") should be a summary of the body of the article, so it doesn't get a reference. Because the lede is a summary, any statement in the lede should essentially be in the body, too, so the reference should be positioned where the body's statement is.

A tendency to write an article like an advertisement sometimes crops up. The recent edits to this article were mild in that regard; I've seen a much more obvious case recently in another article. While this school network has remarkable achievements that should be described, legitimately sourced criticisms also have to be included or preserved. Articles that are too much like ads are subject to severe rewritings or reversions to earlier revisions, often by editors less familiar with the subject.

Ref elements generally follow punctuation. For example, we'd write, ""This is a fact,Source A. and this is another fact.Source B.""

Images need alt texts, so that people who are blind or visually impaired can have their browsers read aloud information about a picture. The old image also lacked an alt text for a long time and now I've added one (I could have long ago but didn't get to it). If you create a new image and add it, please add an alt text with it.

Thank you again for your work.   "