Framing possible contributions

In PR #11, @bjnath, @melissawm, and @cooperrc discussed two topics

1. Having a template for the tutorials in this repo
2. Framing the possible contributions into each document style.

Topic 1 is covered by PR #11 so I wanted to bring up topic 2 in a separate issue.

My thoughts on framing the contributions would be to provide a checklist (maybe it could be included in the PR for a tutorial or how-to). I am using a scientific document as a template because I think many users are using NumPy in scientific applications. Scientific documentation also provides a nice structure to present a problem, propose a solution, and show evidence that it works while providing room for future work.

The checklist would also serve to help review and organize the content. Here is a proposed checklist for review (and general feedback):

Introduction

• Who is the audience
• What will you learn
• What is the problem
• What will you do

Methods

• What do you need
• What will you use
• Are the steps of solution are detailed enough for user
  # Results

# Discussion

Wrapping up

• Are there any missing pieces or future work?
• How did NumPy help solve the original problem posed?

# Conclusion

Beginne damit, PR #11 und die in diesem Issue referenzierte Diskussion zu prüfen, und vergleiche anschließend die vorgeschlagenen Checklist-Abschnitte für die verschiedenen Dokumentstile. Abgeschlossen ist die Aufgabe, wenn sich das Projekt darauf geeinigt hat, wie Beiträge formuliert werden sollten und wo die daraus resultierende Anleitung oder Checkliste hingehört.