Improve figure docstrings and name

[natema]

The current docstrings reference a chapter without referring to a specific book.
With the current plan to add more models, it would be better to mention the book explicitly, possibly as a linked acronym ([DGFW]):

WorldDynamics.World3.Agriculture.fig_69c
— Method

Reproduce Fig 4.69c. The original figure is presented on Chapter 4.

Also, we should consider changing the figure names to match the numbering in the book.

[natema]

@aurorarossi is also suggesting adding the original caption in the docstring.

[natema]

A useful tip for testing the final result is to use LiveServer.jl to preview the documentation locally.

[paulobruno]

Also, we should consider changing the figure names to match the numbering in the book.

What do you mean by "match the numbering in the book"? Aren't we are already following the same numbering?

[natema]

What do you mean by "match the numbering in the book"? Aren't we are already following the same numbering?

E.g. Fig 7-7 is called fig_7 rather than fig_7_7.

[paulobruno]

E.g. Fig 7-7 is called fig_7 rather than fig_7_7.

Ok, I see. This was informally discussed with @piluc and we agreed that using, for example, World3.Agriculture.fig_4-69a is redundant, since Agriculture is always Chapter 4.

[natema]

I agree, and the if the reader doesn't know that fact and open the book and wants to reproduce figure 4-69a, they can still find the command in the documentation, but I'm wondering if we could make it a bit more user friendly with little effort.
E.g., we could define alias functions World3.fig_4_69a() = World3.Agriculture.fig_4-69a().
But I should have probably avoided mentioning this other point in this issue: the main one is to improve the docstrings.

[paulobruno]

Ok, so my suggestion is to use this issue only for the docstrings, without changing the names. Then we can start a discussion about the "alias" functions.

[paulobruno]

Fixed by #124