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

まず PR #11 とこの issue で参照されている議論を確認し、その後、異なるドキュメントスタイルに対して提案されているチェックリストのセクションを比較します。プロジェクトが、コントリビューションをどのように構成すべきか、またその結果得られるガイダンスまたはチェックリストをどこに配置するかについて合意すれば完了です。