deletions | additions       diff --git a/Introduction.tex b/Introduction.tex  index e0d264e..f29fc97 100644  --- a/Introduction.tex  +++ b/Introduction.tex 
...
% big picture context  Mass and radius are often-elusive stellar properties that are critical to understanding a star's past, present, and future. Eclipsing binaries are the only astrophysical laboratories that allow for a direct measurement of these and other fundamental physical parameters. Recently, however, observing solar-like oscillations in stars with convective envelopes has opened a window to stellar interiors and provided a new way to measure global stellar properties. A pair of asteroseismic scaling relations use the Sun as a benchmark and an empirical connection between these oscillations and a star's effective temperature to yield mass and radius \citep{kje95,hub10,mos13}.  While both the mass and radius scaling relations are useful, they remain it is important to test their validity. Recent work has investigated the radius relation by comparing the asteroseismic large-frequency separation $\Delta \nu$ and stellar radius between models and simulated data \citep[e.g.][]{Stello_2009b,White_2011,Miglio_2013}, and by comparing asteroseismic radii with independent radius measurements such as interferometry or binary star modeling \citep[e.g.][]{Huber_2011,Huber_2012,Silva_Aguirre_2012}. All of these find that radius estimates from asteroseismology are precise within a few percent, with greater scatter for red giants than main sequence stars. The mass scaling relation remains  relatively untested. {\bf{[WAY Most studies focus on the reliability of the $\Delta\nu$-$\bar\rho$ scaling and not on $\nu_{\rm{max}}$, because the latter has a less-secure theoretical basis; it is not yet possible to make reliable predictions of the amplitude of solar-like oscillation modes and their dependence with frequency \citep{Christensen-Dalsgaard_2012}.  %{\bf{[WAY  TOO ELUSIVE: WE NEED TO CITE PREVIOUS WORKS AND REPHRASE. I WROTE THIS FOR A PROPOSAL, YOU CAN REPHRASE AND MELT IT WITH THE REST OF THE TEXT, (I PUT BIBTEX REFERENCES ON SLACK): "Given the importance of asteroseismology and its scaling laws, much recent effort has been carried out to test their validity. We may distinguish two kinds of approaches: those based on validating the relation between $\Delta\nu$ and stellar radius $R$ from models and simulated data \citep[e.g.][]{Stello_2009b,White_2011,Miglio_2013}, the others based on measuring $R$ on actual stars independently from asteroseismology \citep[e.g.][]{Huber_2011,Huber_2012,Silva_Aguirre_2012}. All works indicated that radius estimates from asteroseismic scaling relations are precise up to a few percent. On the contrary, similar tests of mass determination for individual stars have not been possible so far. Indeed, most studies focused on the reliability of the $\Delta\nu$-$\bar\rho$ scaling and not on $\nu_{\rm{max}}$, because this observable has no secure theoretical basis, since it is not yet possible to make reliable predictions of the amplitude of stochastically excited modes and their dependence with frequency \citep{Christensen-Dalsgaard_2012}. " ]}} One notable exception is the red giant in the eclipsing binary KIC 8410637, which shows good agreement between Keplerian and asteroseismic mass and radius according to \citet{fra13}. However, a more recent analysis from \citet{hub14} indicates that the asteroseismic density of KIC 8410637 is underestimated by $\sim$7\,\% (1.8~$\sigma$, accounting for the density uncertainties), which results in an overestimate of the radius by $\sim$9\,\% (2.7~$\sigma$) and mass by $\sim$17\,\% (1.9~$\sigma$). In this work, we consider another important test case, KIC 9246715: an eclipsing binary with two nearly-identical red giant stars yet only one set of solar-like oscillations. 
...
% Overview of paper  In this paper, we present physical parameters for the unique RG/EB KIC 9246715, which contains two nearly-identical red giants in a 171-day eccentric orbit. Only one set of solar-like oscillations is present. We find good agreement between photodynamic models and asteroseismology, but are unable to definitively say which star is oscillating. %We explore how star spots and tidal forces may influence the oscillations, verify that the two stars are consistent with a co-evolutionary history, and discuss how this system can inform future detailed studies of RG/EBs.  In \S \ref{data}, we describe how we acquire and process photometric and spectroscopic data, and \S \ref{rvs} explains our radial velocity extraction process. In \S \ref{atm}, we disentangle each star's contribution to the spectra to perform stellar atmosphere modeling. We then present our final orbital solution and physical parameters for KIC 9246715 in \S \ref{model}. Finally, \S \ref{discuss} compares our results with those from asteroseismology and discusses the connection between solar-like oscillations, stellar evolution, effects such as star spots and tidal forces, and implications for future RG/EB studies.