By implementing different vote catching tactics and communicating within larger networks, the Latinos discussed in this story were able to reach a common goal in the election. Because their collaborative efforts and teamwork is highlighted in this story, I'd say that it does promote social capital. When someone reads this, they will most likely feel good about the likelihood of them reaching future goals by implementing similar tactics and will want to share this story and discuss it and what It means to them.

As an editorial piece, I would expect the author to push especially hard to promote social capital, which is demonstrated in this piece. Because the author describes the border security project and goes into its origins and progress before jumping in with his opinion, readers are given a few paragraphs of information to use in drawing their own opinions on the issue before having someone elses' opinion thrown at them. This is a good way to get some social capital going, because in stating his opinion, the author opens up the topic for further discussion between readers after seeing one side of the issue.

The obvious fault line in this article is Race/ethnicity, since the author is discussing the issue from a racial perspective and how it effects the Latino race. Obviously this asrticle is ethnocentric because it focuses on race inequalities themselves.

In Ganz's terms, this article is very clearly ethnocentric because its centered around race and is comparing immigrants to citizens and expresses an unequal balance between the two ethnic groups. When it comes to fault lines, geographic and racial faults are present. A significant part of this story is its geography, which is important to look into when reading any story about immigration because some areas experience immigration more directly then others, also its important to note where immigrants are coming from and going to. also, going hand and hand with geography in this article is race/ethnicity, since there is a division between races/ethnicities discussed in the article.

Alan Gomez's article could use a wider range of sources and maybe some re-write efforts to increase clarity, I also feel that he could be more investigative and enterprising with his piece if he wanted to improve it. Other then those things, this piece is pretty solid and well done.

Morgan Lee wrote an informative article about how immigration audits are effecting employers, she was very balanced and stuck to verifiable facts and quotes from experts/parties involved with the situation at hand. I wish she maybe had written a little bit more about the context of this news, as its important to make the public understand clearly what is going on and not wonder, "Um okay, what's the big deal?" if they are not necessarily close followers of the news but have interest in this topic. That aside, she didn't really take any risks or investigate the topic too thoroughly, so I can't call this article enterprising.

This is an informative article about a very relevant topic that people should be informed of or at least knowledgeable about. While most sources are identified, I wish that there was a broader range of sources and opinions referenced. This article is mostly about the facts and not what the experts in the field believe, so while its considered 'good journalism', it could be improved with some more information. I don't like reading articles that make me ask myself. "So what?" afterwards, which this one made me wonder.

Hargreaves presents a fairly well written article about China's innovations in the field of renewable energy which opens the public forum about what the US should be doing with renewable energy and whether or not America needs to reclaim the number one spot in international renewable energy competition. He is both balanced and transparent in his work, and cites sources from several perspectives and backgrounds. He's not reporting with an agenda here, aside from being a public watchdog and helping people become more conscious citizens.