fixing rst errors

[duvivier]

For detailed information about submitting Pull Requests (PRs) to the CICE-Consortium,
please refer to: https://github.com/CICE-Consortium/About-Us/wiki/Resource-Index#information-for-developers

PR checklist

• [ X ] Short (1 sentence) summary of your PR:
  Cleaning up RST files for documentation. In response to issues Documentation RST syntax cleanup #335 and standardize QC testing workflow, requirements, documentation #347. @phil-blain I have questions for you at the bottom here.

• [ X ] Developer(s):
  @duvivier

• [ X ] Suggest PR reviewers from list in the column to the right.

• [ X ] Please copy the PR test results link or provide a summary of testing completed below.
  From @duvivier's RTD build of the rstcleanup branch: https://cice.readthedocs.io/en/latest/

• How much do the PR code changes differ from the unmodified code?

  • [ X ] bit for bit
  • different at roundoff level
  • more substantial

• Does this PR create or have dependencies on Icepack or any other models?

  • Yes
  • [ X ] No

• Does this PR add any new test cases?

  • Yes
  • [ X ] No

• Is the documentation being updated? ("Documentation" includes information on the wiki or in the .rst files from doc/source/, which are used to create the online technical docs at https://readthedocs.org/projects/cice-consortium-cice/.)

  • [ X ] Yes
  • No, does the documentation need to be updated at a later time?
    • Yes
    • No

• [ X ] Please provide any additional information or relevant details below:
  @phil-blain please in particular look over these sections that are relevant to the following issues:

  Documentation RST syntax cleanup #335 --> https://cice.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/ug_implementation.html

  • I think I found all of these issues and searching works, but please let me know if you find more. the "_" only renders badly if it's in a X special formatting, but not if it's in X or X

  standardize QC testing workflow, requirements, documentation #347 --> https://cice.readthedocs.io/en/latest/user_guide/ug_testing.html

  • I added your suggestions in the end-to-end section
  • I did not yet add info on the Implementation notes: 1)...2) section. Please suggest what you wanted added there in your review?
  • I haven't yet fixed the link to make it more direct. I need to think a bit more through the path you have. Let's discuss.

[phil-blain]

Concerning the paragraph

Implementation notes: 1) Provide a pass/fail on each of the confidence intervals, 2) Facilitate output of a bitmap for each test so that locations of failures can be identified.

I thought that it could simply be deleted as it seemed outdated and more of a 'note-to-self' kind.

[phil-blain]

Also, I checked out out this branch and did grep -r '\\_' | grep '``' and it did not return any cases of '\_' inside `` `` so I think you got them all.

[phil-blain]

As a side note, I think it would be clearer if cice.readthedocs.io and icepack.readthedocs.io were the official versions of the documentation, though I don't know the full history of the implementation/decision. It's not a big issue in my opinion.

[eclare108213]

I agree with @phil-blain about deleting the 'implementation notes' paragraph. Otherwise this looks great to me. Thank you!

[duvivier]

@eclare108213 I just removed the "Implementation Notes" line. I think it's good to go.

@phil-blain We originally used cice.readthedocs.io and icepack.readthedocs.io as the documentation, but we went to RTD for two reasons. 1) we wanted to have a non-changing version of the documentation and PDF for each release, and 2) we would have had to maintain a separate but orphan branch constantly with the documentation on it alone. However, since RTD might force us to implement ads in the future we may need to re-visit this. But for now we should stick with RTD for the immediate future.