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

Commencez par examiner la PR #11 et la discussion référencée dans cette issue, puis comparez les sections de checklist proposées pour les différents styles de documents. C’est terminé lorsque le projet s’est mis d’accord sur la manière dont les contributions doivent être formulées et sur l’emplacement de la documentation ou de la checklist qui en résulte.