===Recent edit changes of the lead=== 
 Good, we seem to be getting somewhere. Thankyou for working on my comments   Its better that way than to have an edit war.  
 I am very happy with 1,2,4, and 5. They are balanced, exclude meaningless words like 'secondary accidents' and identify risks, rather than describing them as effects, one of my major issues. 

 Number 3 is more problematic.  
 Firstly, all of the water use material seems accurate, but in the context of national production, the unit 'billions of metres cubed'(tonnes), is more appropriate, rather than gallons. The data that water to frack one well for 10 plus years is the same as a 1 GigaWatt coal power station (1 million homes) for 12 hours puts the amount in context. In non desert areas it is insignificant. 0.01% of nationally abstracted amount in the UK for example. Surely something like 'Water usage by fracking can be a problem in areas that experience water shortage' would cover it. This is an often repeated theme by people who are against fracking, yet it is not supported by science in most areas, as I keep saying, agriculture and industry are the big users. Fracking is minor.  

 Secondly, for I think the second time, you have removed the comments about the EU or UK policy to the body of the article. This leaves the lead saying 'Surface water may be contaminated through spillage and improperly built and maintained waste pits,[10] and ground water can be contaminated if the fluid is able to escape'. 
 This is not balanced. The EU does not allow open pits, and in view that it contains 28 sovereign countries,many of whom have been debating using HF for shale gas, this must appear in the lead. I believe this originates from the 2006 groundwater directive mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Chemicals_permitted_for_hydraulic_fracturing_in_the_UK  
 The comments on making a Wiki lead say that it should contain a summary of the key points. That fundamentally is a key point! Anti frack literature is full of pictures of open and leaking pits, yet in these are forbidden in the EU. Its fundamentally dishonest, or ignorant of them to do that but they still do. Leaving the article as it is would foster that falsehood. 
 I will leave this for a day or so but I feel that the points I have raised above are crucial, and would give this article a balance, and a technical credibility it has been sorely missing.    

 Oh, and I just found this. Interesting re health effects, as shale gas could be replacing the infinitely more polluting coal. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/12/european-coal-pollution-premature-deaths In fact, in places like Pennsylvania, health has improved, as gas has displaced coal.