Depends on what your take on the two scientific references in the intro is. I have no strong preference (footnotes vs. keeping as is) either way.

Is this working as expected?

References as footnotes that refer to the full source at the bottom of the page sounds good.

Hmm, no, actually I'd have expected something like that:

As far as I can tell, this is also what it looks like in the readthedocs build for the PR.

Yes, that's nice. Can we create a solution that also looks nice in the Jupyter notebook?

Only by adding the jupyterlab_myst dependency to the jupyter executable with which you're opening the .ipynb file. Then the footnote will look like this:

The footnote text will only show up by hovering over the [2] link in the example above.

Maybe in that case I prefer a direct link to the papers (just [text](url)).

Maybe in that case I prefer a direct link to the papers (just [text](url)).

That's a good idea for the papers: will adapt the tutorial accordingly.

What about the footnotes detailing the Grids and providing background info on pandas? Do we keep them as they are now (*) or with the footnote syntax introduced in this PR (nicer docs website but slightly more convoluted notebook looks)?

Both ways are fine I think, I slightly prefer the readability of the notebooks over the docs, since they are mainly interactive tutorials.

I've removed the footnote syntax changes (but kept some formatting corrections in the footnote text).

Maybe in that case I prefer a direct link to the papers (just text).

I've reconsidered here: Do we really want to do that? I think a reference as it currently stands is not so bad and provides more info than a simple URL could. I'd suggest to just keep those citations as is today.

@EwoutH Is there anything else you'd want me to change to get this merged?