Docstring and typing fixes in preparation for release

[teutoburg]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 88.23529% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 75.18%. Comparing base (07a7031) to head (cc17638).
⚠️ Report is 9 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
scopesim/effects/electronic/noise.py	83.33%	1 Missing ⚠️
scopesim/effects/illumination.py	90.90%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #902      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   75.19%   75.18%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          70       70              
  Lines        9013     9016       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         6777     6779       +2     
- Misses       2236     2237       +1     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[oczoske]

Now I'm back to thinking prnu is better...

[oczoske]

Which button is "request changes but don't have to see it again"?

The changes are minor - I don't think we ought to discuss the models too much, the twi that are currently available are mathematically simple but not terribly realistic. But what is realistic... I'd argue now that the amp parameter of the Gaussian should be removed, lest users get funny ideas and mess up the overall throughput.

[teutoburg]

The changes are minor - I don't think we ought to discuss the models too much, the twi that are currently available are mathematically simple but not terribly realistic. But what is realistic... I'd argue now that the amp parameter of the Gaussian should be removed, lest users get funny ideas and mess up the overall throughput.

Ähh, most of your comments (except the spelling) should have been in #898? I mostly restructured the docstrings here to match how they (should) look elsewhere. I did not change the call signatures of anything here, nor the description of those parameters.

We can argue all day about British vs. American spelling, so let's not do that. Plus, the whole -ise/-ize is not that simple.

I'm happy to remove any mention of "normali(s|z)e(d)" if that's not actually happening. Again, I didn't put that there and also didn't check if the original mention of it was correct, which I assumed happened during the review process of #898...