documentation is not complete enough

[carandraug]

A comment from one of the publication reviewers is that the help text is not detailed enough and there's more info on the paper that would be useful:

3. A little bit more explanation on the website itself would be useful for those with less optical experience, in order to make this more broadly applicable. I think this is particularly important, because in the future, most users are likely to go straight for the website, without necessarily reading the paper first. It will be important to maintain and keep the website going, and provide as much explanation as possible. A ‘wiki’ approach might also be useful here.

At the very least, we should refer the paper on the help page.