README: Address reviewer comments.

[Sbte]

For #57, #59.

[dajuno]

I like the changes.

Only examples/gq.py is referenced in the docs, all other examples are supposed to "speak for themselves". Wouldn't it make sense to reference them as example implementations in the problem definitions? Taylor-Couette and Rayleigh-Benard don't have examples, but I think all examples can be linked to a problem definition.

Or tell interested readers of the docs somewhere else what the purpose is of the different setups provided in examples (in docs/continuation.rst you only state that "examples are kept simple to give an idea").

This may be a bit pedantic, if you deem your changes sufficient I won't object!

[Sbte]

Only examples/gq.py is referenced in the docs, all other examples are supposed to "speak for themselves". Wouldn't it make sense to reference them as example implementations in the problem definitions? Taylor-Couette and Rayleigh-Benard don't have examples, but I think all examples can be linked to a problem definition.

The idea was that all examples are useful for any problem definition. That's also why TC and RB don't have an example. I could add some but they'd be the same as existing examples, so they'd just be more things to distract you from more relevant examples.

Or tell interested readers of the docs somewhere else what the purpose is of the different setups provided in examples (in docs/continuation.rst you only state that "examples are kept simple to give an idea").

I'll add an examples page to the docs to reflect the above.