docs: 📝 docs: Update SpectraFit documentation link and add badge

[Anselmoo]

All PR-Submissions:

---

• Have you followed the guidelines in our Contributing document?
• Have you checked to ensure there aren't other open
  Pull Requests for the same
  update/change?

New ✨✨ Feature-Submissions:

---

• Does your submission pass tests?
• Have you lint your code locally prior to submission? Fixed: docs: Adding a mkdocs-material badge to SpectraFit #1463
• This PR is for a new feature, not a bug fix.

Changes to ⚙️ Core-Features:

---

• Have you added an explanation of what your changes do and why you'd like
  us to include them?
• Have you written new tests for your core changes, as applicable?
• Have you successfully run tests with your changes locally?

Summary by Sourcery

Update the SpectraFit documentation link and add a badge to the README to indicate that the documentation is built with Material for MkDocs.

Documentation:

• Update the SpectraFit documentation link in the README.
• Add a badge to the README indicating that the documentation is built with Material for MkDocs.

[semanticdiff-com]

Review changes with SemanticDiff.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request updates the SpectraFit documentation link in the README.md file and adds a badge for 'Material for MkDocs'. The changes are straightforward, involving the addition of a new link and badge to enhance the documentation section.

File-Level Changes

Files	Changes
README.md	Updated the documentation link and added a 'Material for MkDocs' badge.

---

Tips

• Trigger a new Sourcery review by commenting @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue your discussion with Sourcery by replying directly to review comments.
• You can change your review settings at any time by accessing your dashboard:
  • Enable or disable the Sourcery-generated pull request summary or reviewer's guide;
  • Change the review language;
• You can always contact us if you have any questions or feedback.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @Anselmoo - I've reviewed your changes - here's some feedback:

Overall Comments:

• Consider using Markdown syntax instead of HTML for the badge, and possibly opt for a smaller, standard-sized badge to maintain visual consistency in the README.

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟢 General issues: all looks good
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟢 Complexity: all looks good
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.}

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (386edd3) to head (48b99e0).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #1464   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           44        44           
  Lines         4467      4467           
=========================================
  Hits          4467      4467           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	100.00% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.